LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

sebastian_dangerfield 11-29-2007 03:53 PM

One share, one vote!
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
  • The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Communication Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U. S. 735 (1988) . . . held that nonunion employees who are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment could not be forced to support union activities, such as political contributions, that are unrelated to workplace representation.

If they don't like it, they don't have to sign up. So what's the problem?
There is none. All three of them could opt not to sign up.

ltl/fb 11-29-2007 03:55 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
Aren't the studios deathly afraid of what you just wrote? That either people a) will discover other forms of entertainment (such as the internet (perhaps discover is not the right word. Maybe use more?) and/or b) simply not watch as many t.v. shows or movies? The last big writers strike pushed viewing audiences towards cable and pushed the networks towards reality t.v. shows. I don't know where the audiences may end up after this strike. And if the studios (in their polling/tracking) believe that negative press or negative attitudes could affect these numbers, then that will change the strategy.

aV
I think the networks' move to reality TV from scripted TV hurt the writers much more than it hurt the networks, but that may just be propaganda. Reality TV is cheap as hell to produce, and at least at the moment, very popular. American Idol, anyone?

I don't think it's really a networks vs. cable issue at all. I think most or even nearly all of the scripted content on cable is governed by the agreements -- it's not just network scripted shows that are ending, it's Comedy Central etc. Plus, a lot of the cable channels are actually owned by the same conglomerates that own the networks. It's all producers, not just network producers.

I'm not seeing that people would somehow become readers or start watching mainly non-produced content (like youtube) -- but I'm not a trend predictor at all.

sebastian_dangerfield 11-29-2007 04:00 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think the networks' move to reality TV from scripted TV hurt the writers much more than it hurt the networks, but that may just be propaganda. Reality TV is cheap as hell to produce, and at least at the moment, very popular. American Idol, anyone?

I don't think it's really a networks vs. cable issue at all. I think most or even nearly all of the scripted content on cable is governed by the agreements -- it's not just network scripted shows that are ending, it's Comedy Central etc. Plus, a lot of the cable channels are actually owned by the same conglomerates that own the networks. It's all producers, not just network producers.

I'm not seeing that people would somehow become readers or start watching mainly non-produced content (like youtube) -- but I'm not a trend predictor at all.
It will be a short term boom for NetFlix and Blockbuster and pay per view and theatres. It will also help the movie studios a little because they have a deep backlog of movies that they otherwise wouldn't release that they can now put into the marketplace at higher profit due to the decreased supply.

I don't think the studios can mine much more out of the reality genre. It's already beaten to death.

Gattigap 11-29-2007 04:13 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
Aren't the studios deathly afraid of what you just wrote? That either people a) will discover other forms of entertainment (such as the internet (perhaps discover is not the right word. Maybe use more?) and/or b) simply not watch as many t.v. shows or movies? The last big writers strike pushed viewing audiences towards cable and pushed the networks towards reality t.v. shows. I don't know where the audiences may end up after this strike. And if the studios (in their polling/tracking) believe that negative press or negative attitudes could affect these numbers, then that will change the strategy.

aV
I've been listening to a writer/producer named Rob Long on a local station (KCRW) who's explaining that the writers are making a bad move because they're probably going to lose, and the studios are making a bad move because even when they win, it'll just be the first stage of a murder/suicide death pact, because this strike will help accelerate the trend away from the current messy, expensive, inefficient studio system to the more efficient means of producing and distributing content on the interwebs. The shrinking pie won't kill professionally produced content, but it will make a number of people relatively poorer.

notcasesensitive 11-29-2007 04:14 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think the networks' move to reality TV from scripted TV hurt the writers much more than it hurt the networks, but that may just be propaganda. Reality TV is cheap as hell to produce, and at least at the moment, very popular. American Idol, anyone?

I don't think it's really a networks vs. cable issue at all. I think most or even nearly all of the scripted content on cable is governed by the agreements -- it's not just network scripted shows that are ending, it's Comedy Central etc. Plus, a lot of the cable channels are actually owned by the same conglomerates that own the networks. It's all producers, not just network producers.

I'm not seeing that people would somehow become readers or start watching mainly non-produced content (like youtube) -- but I'm not a trend predictor at all.
In an interesting (to me)coincidence, an actor friend today sent me the link for her new webseries. Not sure whether the writers on that would be prohibited from working during the strike, but those are now out there. I've heard conflicting reports about the effect on blogs and the like. My guess is that if the writer is union, they can't write, but maybe it is easier to get non-union writers to write for internet alternatives?

ltl/fb 11-29-2007 04:14 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I just listened to a writer on NPR explaining that it doesn't, and that the union is ginning up public sentiment to rally its members who may be considering crossing picket lines.
THAT makes sense to me.

w/r/t your later post, the writers strike applies to movies, so the studios would eventually run out of movies -- it just is a more delayed effect than on TV because movies take longer. The studios say they have scripts stockpiled, but that's a little bit BS I think b/c writers seem to remain involved well after shooting begins.

I don't think the studios can get more out of reality, but I think it's not going to go away -- so it's a reliable, significant source of money. And it seems like even though people might prefer to watch good stuff, if there's nothing really good, they'll watch almost anything.

ltl/fb 11-29-2007 04:16 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
In an interesting (to me)coincidence, an actor friend today sent me the link for her new webseries. Not sure whether the writers on that would be prohibited from working during the strike, but those are now out there. I've heard conflicting reports about the effect on blogs and the like. My guess is that if the writer is union, they can't write, but maybe it is easier to get non-union writers to write for internet alternatives?
I think non-union people can write for those, but that the WGA may have said that they will refuse to let non-union people who do a lot of stuff during the strike into the WGA in future, or something, which would mean that they couldn't make the transition from (likely non-lucrative) webseries to writing for TV/movies for any entity that is part of the producers guild, which is pretty much all of the entities that pay people.

Who pays for the webseries?

ltl/fb 11-29-2007 04:19 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
I've been listening to a writer/producer named Rob Long on a local station (KCRW) who's explaining that the writers are making a bad move because they're probably going to lose, and the studios are making a bad move because even when they win, it'll just be the first stage of a murder/suicide death pact, because this strike will help accelerate the trend away from the current messy, expensive, inefficient studio system to the more efficient means of producing and distributing content on the interwebs. The shrinking pie won't kill professionally produced content, but it will make a number of people relatively poorer.
I believe that, as well, to some extent. I don't think I've seen any non-produced content on the internet that makes money, though? But filmed entertainment is not a hugenormous part of my life.

Replaced_Texan 11-29-2007 04:27 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think the networks' move to reality TV from scripted TV hurt the writers much more than it hurt the networks, but that may just be propaganda. Reality TV is cheap as hell to produce, and at least at the moment, very popular. American Idol, anyone?

I don't think it's really a networks vs. cable issue at all. I think most or even nearly all of the scripted content on cable is governed by the agreements -- it's not just network scripted shows that are ending, it's Comedy Central etc. Plus, a lot of the cable channels are actually owned by the same conglomerates that own the networks. It's all producers, not just network producers.

I'm not seeing that people would somehow become readers or start watching mainly non-produced content (like youtube) -- but I'm not a trend predictor at all.
There was one poll that suggested that more people are planning on picking up books and magazines than any other form of alternate form of entertainment. I have plenty of DVDs to help me through this difficult, difficult time. And the real impact isn't going to be felt for another month or so of reruns.

I tend to by sympathetic towards the writers. In part because I actually know quite a few of them, and in part because I secretly aspire to be one of them.

I have a friend that works for a casting agency in New York. She said that the double strikes was just killing the agency, and they're all extremely relieved that the stage hand strike is over. My boyfriend works in production in LA, and he says a lot of the Christmas parties that the studios and other industry companies usually throw have been cancelled or sized down considerably this year. He says that are a lot more technical people than usual looking for productions to join right now.

Gattigap 11-29-2007 04:34 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

I tend to by sympathetic towards the writers. In part because I actually know quite a few of them, and in part because I secretly aspire to be one of them.
I know what you mean. From the little that I've seen (my firm has an entertainment group, and tangentially I've learned a little bit about how being a writer in Hollywood works, though certainly I'm no str8) it sounds like it can be a real struggle to make it as a writer, though.

Quote:

I have a friend that works for a casting agency in New York. She said that the double strikes was just killing the agency, and they're all extremely relieved that the stage hand strike is over. My boyfriend works in production in LA, and he says a lot of the Christmas parties that the studios and other industry companies usually throw have been cancelled or sized down considerably this year. He says that are a lot more technical people than usual looking for productions to join right now.
AoN, the aforementioned Rob Long has two theories about when the strike will end. His head tells him June, for reasons that I'm not recalling at the moment. His gut tells him January, because that's when pilot season starts. If the networks miss pilot season, then they'll have nothing to sell to advertisers in May, when traditionally the networks auction off something like 40-70% of their advertising inventory for the new season, for which they get paid upfront.

Those upfronts amounts to mucho cash. If there are no upfronts to sell, then Long alleges that these billion dollar networks will be worth something along the lines of a basic cable channel.

Uh, carry on.

Gattigap

Replaced_Texan 11-29-2007 04:35 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think non-union people can write for those, but that the WGA may have said that they will refuse to let non-union people who do a lot of stuff during the strike into the WGA in future, or something, which would mean that they couldn't make the transition from (likely non-lucrative) webseries to writing for TV/movies for any entity that is part of the producers guild, which is pretty much all of the entities that pay people.

Who pays for the webseries?
My ex-boyfriend is a writer, and he's pissed off with the WGA because of the strike rules regarding writing content on the web. Apparently, the WGA is discouraging any writing for profit at all, even writing that isn't covered by the contract. I don't know how much they're enforcing it, or whether or not writers are following those rules.

A writer's blog that many of my writer friends admire: http://artfulwriter.com/

ltl/fb 11-29-2007 04:44 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My ex-boyfriend is a writer, and he's pissed off with the WGA because of the strike rules regarding writing content on the web. Apparently, the WGA is discouraging any writing for profit at all, even writing that isn't covered by the contract. I don't know how much they're enforcing it, or whether or not writers are following those rules.

A writer's blog that many of my writer friends admire: http://artfulwriter.com/
I am sympathetic towards the writers -- I just don't see how they have any leverage. And I can more easily see people telling a poll that they are going to read books and magazines rather than going to movies or watching TV than I can see them actually doing that, long-term.

To the extent DVD-watching impacts sales of DVDs, watching DVDs doesn't seem particularly supportive of the writers, given that they are asking for more revenue-sharing on those, as well -- that implies it is mostly the studios who are profiting.

Hank Chinaski 11-29-2007 04:55 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
In an interesting (to me)coincidence, an actor friend today sent me the link for her new webseries. Not sure whether the writers on that would be prohibited from working during the strike, but those are now out there. I've heard conflicting reports about the effect on blogs and the like. My guess is that if the writer is union, they can't write, but maybe it is easier to get non-union writers to write for internet alternatives?
can't write at all? Ben Stein did his column in the NYT last sunday and talked about being in the union.

andViolins 11-29-2007 05:07 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My ex-boyfriend is a writer, and he's pissed off with the WGA because of the strike rules regarding writing content on the web. Apparently, the WGA is discouraging any writing for profit at all, even writing that isn't covered by the contract. I don't know how much they're enforcing it, or whether or not writers are following those rules.

A writer's blog that many of my writer friends admire: http://artfulwriter.com/
I'm not sure how correct this is. According to the "strike rules" posted on the WGA webpage:

"Non-traditional media
The Rules prohibit writing services performed for a struck company in connection with new programming intended for initial viewing on non-traditional media (such as the Internet and cellular telephones), and the option or sale of literary material for that purpose."

Thus, if the web page or other "new media" is connected to one of the struck companies, then the union member cannot "cross the picket line" and write for the company. If the website is not owned, operated or connected with any of the AMPTP companies, then the union could not prohibit the writer from writing for that site, blog, etc.

aV

ltl/fb 11-29-2007 05:55 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My ex-boyfriend is a writer, and he's pissed off with the WGA because of the strike rules regarding writing content on the web. Apparently, the WGA is discouraging any writing for profit at all, even writing that isn't covered by the contract. I don't know how much they're enforcing it, or whether or not writers are following those rules.

A writer's blog that many of my writer friends admire: http://artfulwriter.com/
I wish I had been reading this at the time -- he had EXACTLY the reaction re: Teamsters and strike marching schedules that I did:
  • I have to amend my “praise the leadership!” post from a few days ago.

    The one about The Teamsters.

    I praise the leadership for convincing everyone that the Teamsters were going to support us. In reality, the WGA is picketing studios between 9 AM and 5 PM.

    Trucks come in before 9 AM, and they leave after 5 PM, so this isn’t really conducive to getting Teamster support…

    Furthermore, I know that writers will be picketing Warner Brothers today…but at one gate.

    Warner Brothers has…I think 9 gates…maybe 8. But more than one.

    So I wouldn’t be counting on anything valuable from this alliance of the unions’ leaderships, although I still believe that the rank and file of the Teamster Brotherhood are behind us, and I know I’m behind them.

Replaced_Texan 11-29-2007 05:59 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
I'm not sure how correct this is. According to the "strike rules" posted on the WGA webpage:

"Non-traditional media
The Rules prohibit writing services performed for a struck company in connection with new programming intended for initial viewing on non-traditional media (such as the Internet and cellular telephones), and the option or sale of literary material for that purpose."

Thus, if the web page or other "new media" is connected to one of the struck companies, then the union member cannot "cross the picket line" and write for the company. If the website is not owned, operated or connected with any of the AMPTP companies, then the union could not prohibit the writer from writing for that site, blog, etc.

aV
I think that the web writing (and some of the animation writing) that they do isn't really covered by the contract that they're under. His interpretation was probably wrong in that they're free to write (for pay) for non studio sites, but I think that web writing in general isn't really something they're striking over.

andViolins 11-29-2007 06:39 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that the web writing (and some of the animation writing) that they do isn't really covered by the contract that they're under. His interpretation was probably wrong in that they're free to write (for pay) for non studio sites, but I think that web writing in general isn't really something they're striking over.
Fair point. However the purpose of the strike is to cause the employer financial pain by limiting the company's ability to get any product out. While fringey is correct that this isn't like a traditional picket (i.e. UAW and Ford*) but I guess that a somewhat good anology would be the UAW member being on strike against Ford at a U.S. plant, but going over to Europe to do some assembly work in a Land Rover plant.

aV


*I recognize that the UAW did not strike Ford. It was simply an example.

sebastian_dangerfield 11-30-2007 01:06 AM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think the studios can get more out of reality, but I think it's not going to go away -- so it's a reliable, significant source of money. And it seems like even though people might prefer to watch good stuff, if there's nothing really good, they'll watch almost anything.
The paradox in reality television was that it did lower costs substantially for the studios and open up a whole new revenue stream. But in so doing, television dumbed itself down just in time for the internet to enter the stage and show equally dumb programming to the public (Drudge, Gawker, etc..). Television didn't protect its advantage.

It's only a matter of time until the net figures out a way to start pumping out reality shows of comparable quality. And on the net, the banner ads can't be ignored with TiVo.

I have to confess, by the way, I hate-- No, loathe, reality television, in its almost every incarnation. Sure, I can watch a few minutes of America's Most Smartest Model because Ben Stein is hysterical, but I cannot stomach five minutes of Survivor or Real World or even Beauty and the Geek. It's always the same platform - cringe as fools embarrass selves. It's a very limited punchline.

I think the reason for the success of reality television is it makes the people who watch it feel a lot better about themselves. That kind of creeps me out.

Atticus Grinch 11-30-2007 02:36 AM

Caption, please.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
http://jezebel.com/assets/resources/...iani112907.jpg
"And I firmly believe that the institution of marriage is a sacred bond reserved by God for the lifelong union of one man [giggle] . . . one man . . . ."

Replaced_Texan 11-30-2007 01:05 PM

More labor stuff
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The paradox in reality television was that it did lower costs substantially for the studios and open up a whole new revenue stream. But in so doing, television dumbed itself down just in time for the internet to enter the stage and show equally dumb programming to the public (Drudge, Gawker, etc..). Television didn't protect its advantage.

It's only a matter of time until the net figures out a way to start pumping out reality shows of comparable quality. And on the net, the banner ads can't be ignored with TiVo.

I have to confess, by the way, I hate-- No, loathe, reality television, in its almost every incarnation. Sure, I can watch a few minutes of America's Most Smartest Model because Ben Stein is hysterical, but I cannot stomach five minutes of Survivor or Real World or even Beauty and the Geek. It's always the same platform - cringe as fools embarrass selves. It's a very limited punchline.

I think the reason for the success of reality television is it makes the people who watch it feel a lot better about themselves. That kind of creeps me out.
I think that the reality thing was one of many factors that actually made television better. Scripted television these days is so much better written than in the days when there were three networks and there was no competition for a viewer's attention. Shows on cable, reality shows, stupid ass gameshows like Who Wants to be a Millionaire resulted in a far superior television product over a broader spectrum than five, ten, fifteen years ago. Cheap reality fails in making money over and over again for the studios, but the good quality scripted stuff endures into syndication and DVD sales.

Used to be that there were one or two well written shows out there that offered the viewer complex story lines with multiple interesting characters. That's not the case these days. Used to be that once an actor broke out of TV and into the movies, there was no turning back to the small screen. That's not the case these days. Used to be that episodic tv was the sole province of soap operas. That's not the case these days.

Sure, there's still a lot of crap on TV, but there's also a LOT of good stuff out there that's well written, fairly well acted, and engaging to the viewer. I think that reality television was helpful in generating a better quality product.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 11-30-2007 01:21 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Hank's Friends

RT, tell us about Texas again.

How do you deal with all Hank's friends down there?

Replaced_Texan 11-30-2007 01:29 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hank's Friends

RT, tell us about Texas again.

How do you deal with all Hank's friends down there?
Texas is the greatest state in the greatest nation in the world. Doesn't mean it's perfect.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 11-30-2007 02:10 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Texas is the greatest state in the greatest nation in the world. Doesn't mean it's perfect.
It's true that my kids are really missing out up here, having to learn about evolution when they could be learning about intelligent design instead.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 11-30-2007 02:19 PM

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy
 
Does anyone else enjoy that Rudy's latest scandal is being called the "Shag Fund" Scandal?

I mean, come on, it had nothing to do with shagging (except for the travel and "security" for his girlfriend, I hope). It was all just about scamming whoever wanted to try to read a City budget.

Gattigap 11-30-2007 02:19 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's true that my kids are really missing out up here, having to learn about evolution when they could be learning about intelligent design instead.
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-30-2007 02:21 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.
We could start with electing Mitt Romney.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 11-30-2007 02:23 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.
You see, I find those amusing, especially when they're on the mark.

Hank Chinaski 11-30-2007 02:23 PM

And, remember, Adam and Eve were White
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's these kinds of posts that will lead people to collect articles about something asinine that Massholes do, and then wait for you in the tall grass.
what you miss is that almost everything GGG posts is something assinine someone from Massachuttes has done. Did she lose her job for what she was teaching or from taking a political position?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 11-30-2007 02:23 PM

Be Afraid
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We could start with electing Mitt Romney.
This one's on the mark, but I am not amused.

Tyrone Slothrop 11-30-2007 04:49 PM

The "liberal" Washington Post, pt. MMCLVII.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...302007_520.gif

LessinSF 11-30-2007 05:21 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...x298-carto.gif

And now thousands of these ignorant fuckers want to execute her. Can we develop a bug that selects for reason, and release it certain parts of the equatorial world. And south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Hank Chinaski 11-30-2007 05:33 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...x298-carto.gif

And now thousands of these ignorant fuckers want to execute her. Can we develop a bug that selects for reason, and release it certain parts of the equatorial world. And south of the Mason-Dixon line.
can you explain what this means?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 11-30-2007 05:38 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can you explain what this means?
The Mason-Dixon line is a fictional line that was meant to divide North from South. It runs along the border between Pennsylvania and Delaware on the northern side and Maryland and West Virginia on the southern side.

SlaveNoMore 11-30-2007 05:40 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

LessinSF
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...x298-carto.gif

And now thousands of these ignorant fuckers want to execute her. Can we develop a bug that selects for reason, and release it certain parts of the equatorial world. And south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Dude, get with the times. (or should I say, "Times"). Sharia is now the #1 choice of the media elite.

Just look - the NYT today is arguing that being against female genital mutilation is merely another evil Western instance of "cultural imperialism"

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...-circumcision/

SlaveNoMore 11-30-2007 05:44 PM

Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Hank Chinaski
can you explain what this means?
It means that if Less had a rocket launcher, all of Washington, DC would die.

Sorry Chef.

LessinSF 11-30-2007 05:45 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can you explain what this means?
"Reason" means not wanting to kill a teacher because her students named a teddy bear "Muhammed."

Hank Chinaski 11-30-2007 05:51 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by LessinSF
"Reason" means not wanting to kill a teacher because her students named a teddy bear "Muhammed."
I just didn't know if you knew the "Jesus the Pooh" thing was satire. I apologize but the average IQ level here is pretty fucking low, and even the ones who do have 3 digits in their IQs whiff like motherfuckers.

futbol fan 11-30-2007 06:04 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can you explain what this means?
Less 431-3 Hank

Hank Chinaski 11-30-2007 06:05 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ironweed
Less 431-3 Hank
Translation: http://www.fcsl.edu/images/banner_title.gif

Tyrone Slothrop 11-30-2007 06:08 PM

Jesus the Pooh
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The Mason-Dixon line is a fictional line.
Are you unable to distinguish between reality and the novels of Thomas Pynchon?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com