Ace of Spades HQ

August 10, 2008

CNN Asks: Edwards Affair: Was Media Part of a Conspiracy of Silence? (genghis)
— Open Blog

Subtitled: Welcome to the Party, Pal.

Wow. Just simply fucking wow. Its hard to know where to start with this, so Ill just link the article up front here and slog through it. The navel gazing starts here, (the denials and hypocrisy come later):

Rumors about John Edwards' love affair had been circulating for months, but it wasn't until the former Democratic presidential candidate admitted to the affair that national news organizations jumped on the story.
After the National Enquirer reported catching Edwards making a late-night visit to see his ex-mistress last month, the blogosphere exploded, asking why the mainstream media was not reporting the story.

I just hate it when blogospheres explodeany word on casualties? Everyone doing ok out there? At least we didnt get sucked into the man-made black hole that was created in Europe over the weekend. Unless we did, and Im writing this from the event horizon and dont know it yet. But thats another story and I appear to have A.D.D. Continuing, CNN asks some probing questions:

Was it because of a condescending attitude toward a tabloid's reporting? Bias toward a Democratic candidate? Or sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards, who is battling an incurable form of cancer?

Nah, none of that you bunch of silly cretins. Here we have a helpful explanation from a respected news source:

David Carr, a columnist for The New York Times, said many news organizations "tend to pick up stories from the National Enquirer with tongs."
"They have been very right about some things ... but there's been some misses too, so it's a little scary to follow on those stories," he said Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources.
"It's also a little scary for big outfits to step up on a story like this. Sex may sell, but it can really hurt your relationship with readers," he added.

Well, Im satisfied with that explanation. Even without tongs, respected big outfits would never touch an alleged sex scandal without exhaustive research, multiple layers of fact-checking and reliable sources of information. Even then, though, such a tawdry and unseemly story would never make its way to the front page.

And other highly-esteemed news organizations wish to weigh in as well:

Asked by CNN's Howard Kurtz if sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards played any part in an apparent reluctance to report the story, ABC correspondent Kate Snow said no.
"We at ABC were working on this story, and if we had had any proof and any verifiable facts, we certainly would have gone with the story," she said. "It was just a matter of, we're not going to put something on the air until we know that it's true."

I love the smell of integrity in the morning. Smells likebacon? I knew I shouldve eaten something before I started writing this. Time for that later. But theres more from ABC:

Brian Ross, ABC's chief investigative correspondent, said his investigative team was pushing hard following the money trail, looking at such things as who paid for Hunter's fancy California home and the use of campaign funds.
As Ross worked on the money angle, his colleague Bob Woodruff landed an interview with Edwards. With Edwards' on-camera admission, the story changed from a rumored affair to a former presidential candidate caught in a lie. "Until he called -- and it's on the record that he called us on Friday and said, 'I want to talk.' You know, that's what broke the story. He was willing to admit that he had been lying," Snow said.

Ah, so thats what broke the story! Hopefully Mr. Ross doesnt dislocate his shoulder trying to pat himself and his organization on the back.
But wait! A small glimmer of light and understanding from Mr. Kurtz? Could it be?

Kurtz said news organizations were clinging to a very important standard: Don't run allegations that you can't prove. "But it became a ludicrous situation ... almost became a conspiracy of silence by the media. And Edwards, meanwhile, would not give interviews, was not acting like a man who didn't have something to hide. "I think at that point we should have -- earlier than we did -- told readers and viewers what we knew and we didn't know," he said.

Almost done here:

But with questions still looming about the identity of the child's father and the Enquirer standing by its reporting, the blogosphere will probably keep this story alive.

Ya think? Finally, Mr. Carr of the New York Times leaves us with a parting thought:

"I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's news when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed," Carr said.
"Members of the public, people with modems, people with cell phones are now producers, editors. They can push and push and push on a story until it ends up being acknowledged by everyone."

With understanding comes wisdom.

Posted by: Open Blog at 10:20 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 854 words, total size 5 kb.

1 David Carr, a columnist for The New York Times, said many news organizations "tend to pick up stories from the National Enquirer with tongs."

"They have been very right about some things ... but there's been some misses too, so it's a little scary to follow on those stories," he said Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources.

Tongs? I remember them sinking their teeth into the Rush Limbaugh/Oxycontin story. Talk about unadulterated B.S.

Posted by: Tinian at August 11, 2008 02:46 AM (1Mq7K)

2 It's all because of the damned modems.

Posted by: mr.frakypants at August 11, 2008 02:53 AM (PonvG)

3 By constantly denigrating the internet, blogs, and the NE, for doing the job they refuse to do, who do they think they're fooling?

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 03:20 AM (h4JIA)

4 Members of the public, people with modems

Modems? HAR!

Posted by: Jack at August 11, 2008 03:30 AM (DzzbG)

Let me help David out a little:

"I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's TRUE when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's TRUE when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed," Carr said.

"Members of the public, people with modems, people with cell phones are now producers, editors. They can push and push and push on a story until it ends up being acknowledged by everyone. Those shiftless, hobo-killing bastards. "

Posted by: Rob B at August 11, 2008 04:24 AM (q32Ly)

Huh. The media covering for a Democrat?

That's really going to change my view of them. I never would have thought that they could do it.

Posted by: blaster at August 11, 2008 04:27 AM (BiphJ)

7 The MSM only works tirelessly on Anti-stories....anti christian, conservative, capitalism, American, family,soldier.....those stories are dug and manipulated and sent early to press..error correction can come later...after all, the story is the thing.....you know....it should be the LSM lame stream media......

Posted by: free at August 11, 2008 04:30 AM (cFwGO)

8 Kurtz said news organizations were clinging to a very important standard: Don't run allegations that you can't prove

It's so cute when they pretend to have integrity in order to cover up their lack of integrity.

Posted by: Warden at August 11, 2008 04:33 AM (KXbGD)

Was it because of a condescending attitude toward a tabloid's reporting? Bias toward a Democratic candidate? Or sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards, who is battling an incurable form of cancer?

These three sentences encapsulate the whole MSM motivation in an amazingly self-referential fashion: two convenient, plausible, and even somewhat understandable hypotheses acting as the whole-grain slices of bread. In between, the rich, smelly turd of actual truth... media partisanship and systematic protection of Democrats from harm, until the Dems themselves decide how they want things to "come out", or forever if necessary. Rock on.

Oops, almost forgot... and die faster, please!

Posted by: sherlock at August 11, 2008 04:41 AM (ojW85)

10 I did not have improper bias for that politician ..... Mr. Edwards.

Posted by: MSM at August 11, 2008 04:52 AM (RLBRw)

11 At least it was just a sex scandal. It's not like CNN kept a station in a place like, oh I dunno, Iraq under Saddam, and told us we were getting real news while the whole time CNN knew they wouldn't tell us the full truth lest Saddam give them the boot. Ask Eason Jordan. Hey, where'd he go?

Posted by: George Orwell at August 11, 2008 05:26 AM (rf5CF)

12 Oh, leave Edwards alone. He who was resolved to solve the problem of the "Two America" would be equipped to solve the problem of the "Two AoShq Blog WebSites." Really, what do we have to do to fix this problem? Call in the UN?

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 05:29 AM (h4JIA)

13 On behalf of Ross clan members worldwide, I would like to disown Brian. Maybe the Quisling family will adopt him...

Posted by: David Ross at August 11, 2008 05:31 AM (GwV+j)

14 So they've started to understand the truth -- but what will their response be?

SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET! I expect Barack Hussein Obama to add a platform plank applying the "fairness" doctrine to 'blogs and Web publications. (They could do it: since so many people use wireless devices, a blog or a Web site is "broadcast" and therefore can have its content controlled for the good of the public.)

Posted by: Trimegistus at August 11, 2008 05:38 AM (do8tV)

15 This is the same Brian Ross. who was very diligent in revealing the detention facilities for KSM, Zubeydah, al Nashiri, in Eastern Europe and N. Africa; hence forcing the transfer to Gitmo, and the MCA which the Supremes defecated on, this summer. So Double Standards, a bit much.

Posted by: narciso at August 11, 2008 05:41 AM (8nB5X)

16 I almost snorted water out of my nose reading that, unintentionally, funny claptrap.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at August 11, 2008 05:41 AM (wba6w)

17 Ha, more sarcasm! I don't have a modem so I must know what I am talking about, then. But, how am I doing this?

Producers, editors=deciders

Posted by: mikey at August 11, 2008 06:08 AM (GSeVd)

18 Yeah, I think a crackdown on the internet is on the horizon, too.

The government will claim that they built it, they own it, they get to shut (parts of) it down. Of course, the parts they shut down will also tend to be the parts that cause them political inconvenience.

Posted by: Phinn at August 11, 2008 06:12 AM (NLtoU)

19 They talk about their integrity... how they waited so long until they broke the story that was already well known and broken. But Mccain's affair with his lobbyist... you know, the one that didn't really happen but was plastered on the front page of the NYT, turned out to be a BS story.

Why do all these extremes... the extreme for printing lies, and the extreme for hiding the truth, always benefit democrats and hurt republicans?

It's hilarious that some of the left is convinced that the MSM favors Bush and conservatives when the bias is so absurdly in their favor.

Posted by: ghy at August 11, 2008 06:15 AM (8jYMc)

20 "Until he called -- and it's on the record that he called us on Friday and said, 'I want to talk.' You know, that's what broke the story. He was willing to admit that he had been lying," Snow said.

If stories only break when they come forward publicly with a mea culpa, it pretty much defeats the need for journalism altogether.

Posted by: FreakyBoy at August 11, 2008 06:18 AM (4s1it)

21 Yeah, I think a crackdown on the internet is on the horizon, too.

They will tax it. I believe their is some federal law that currently says they can't. However, in a few years it sunsets. LA has already passed a law that says since they can tax utilities then they can tax internet access when the federal law sunsets. They want to fucking tax every fucking thing. Income hasn't gone up that much but the feds, state, and local jurisdictions all want/plan to raise taxes. They also have passed a number of bone head revenue increasing laws. They truly make me sick.

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 06:20 AM (h4JIA)

22 I had to raise up my feet so that I didn't get the "arrogance" on my shoes.

Posted by: Steve L. at August 11, 2008 06:22 AM (o0YD+)

23 If stories only break when they come forward publicly with a mea culpa, it pretty much defeats the need for journalism altogether.

They're pretty much saying, "Well we had to wait for him to admit it before reporting on it."

Kinda like Nixon.

Wait, no that's the opposite.

Posted by: Warden at August 11, 2008 06:25 AM (KXbGD)

24 I think what pissed people off the most was the flagrant lack of admission on the part of the MSM that there were even "rumors" of a sex scandal. So the MSM admits that for all their "shineing a spotlight on government and politicans", they won't go with a story until there's an "admission" of wrong-doing.....unless of course it's a REPUBLICAN. How do they square their 'reticence' with the NYT's story of McCains "alleged" affair?

Posted by: GarandFan at August 11, 2008 06:35 AM (eJ32B)

25 "The affair began long, long, long before she was hired to work for the campaign almost half a year before she was hired to work on those videos," O'Brien said in an exclusive interview with ABC News.O'Brien says Hunter told her that in late February, early March 2006 she met an amazing man from North Carolina named John at a New York City hotel bar. She referred to her new man as 'Love Lips', whom she said was married with small children and a wife who had been ill.

Posted by: Neo at August 11, 2008 06:42 AM (Yozw9)

The MSM effectively gave Edwards control of the story, didn't they? And I don't see any sign of them really taking the bit in their teeth from here forward either.

Any Democrat of national prominence is essentially seen by the MSM as a client, with a very large say, perhaps even a veto, in how any story that might embarrass them is handled.

Posted by: sherlock at August 11, 2008 06:44 AM (N7uu0)

27 Kurtz said news organizations were clinging to a very important standard: Don't run allegations that you can't prove.

Good morning all! You thirsty? Would anyone like some TANG?

Posted by: Lucy Ramirez at August 11, 2008 06:45 AM (A3+EL)

"Was the media part of a conspiracy of silence?"

I think a tougher question we need to noodle on is this "Sunrise" phenomenon. Look, I know the Sun has risen every morning for the last 4 billion years or so, but don't we really need to ask ourselves "Will the Sun rise tomorrow?"

Seriously, I regard this as much more of a mystery than the question about whether the media effectively acts as a PR org, or "Non-PR" org, for the Democratic Party. Hey... "NPR" explained?

Posted by: sherlock at August 11, 2008 06:57 AM (N7uu0)

29 David Carr, a columnist for The New York Times, said many news organizations "tend to pick up stories from the National Enquirer with tongs."

"They have been very right about some things ... but there's been some misses too, so it's a little scary to follow on those stories," he said Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources.

If a dog barked something negative about a Republican you can bet your ass that these fuckers would publish it.

Fido: ruff ruff rrrrrruff, woof

MSM: whats that boy, McCain had an afair?

"It's also a little scary for big outfits to step up on a story like this. Sex may sell, but it can really hurt your relationship with readers," he added. 

Translation: we care about our "relationship" with liberal readers, conservatives...not so much.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at August 11, 2008 07:07 AM (E6GUg)

30 The main difference between the NYT and the Enquirer is that I would actually pay some money to read the Enquirer.

Posted by: roy at August 11, 2008 07:22 AM (cB77O)

31 John Edwards leaves his cancer stricken wife to do the horizontal mambo with his gal-pal and not one of the major media outlets can be bothered to investigate his activities.

A few months ago the sainted New York Times treated all of us to a front page story about John McCains alleged non-affair - the evidence turned out to be paper thin and ultimately discredited.

So, Republican John McCains non-story was plastered across the press like it was golden until proven false contrast that to Democrat John Edwards real story that was conveniently dismissed by nearly all until the truth couldnt be ignored.

Bastards.

Posted by: Murph at August 11, 2008 07:27 AM (AQeMJ)

32 Here's a likely pretext for our New Obasmic Overlords, come January 2009, to quash free speech on the internet. They will claim politically oriented websites are part of the election process, and therefore subject to regulation. One easy way to shut us down is to force web advertisers to leap through a forest of regulatory hoops before placing ads on politically driven blogs. Say goodbye to the trickle of cash that lets us hobo-killers maintain a web presence.

Posted by: George Orwell at August 11, 2008 07:28 AM (rf5CF)

33 Mary Mapes called babbling something about a "fukenagotthatright".

Posted by: Gordon at August 11, 2008 07:35 AM (KoMjB)

You can't really blame the media on this. When confronted with obvious evidence of Edwards's misbehavior, they just did what we all do in these situations:

They asked themselves "WWFBD: What would Fred Baron do?" Then all the pieces fell together!

Posted by: Average Jen at August 11, 2008 07:39 AM (vk06T)

35 Hey, here that Richard Dreyfuss, whose latest acting pos is W, is suing his father who is in his 80s at least, for a 24 year old loan.

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 07:58 AM (h4JIA)

36 Ultimately the question you should all be asking yourselves is; "Who is Love Lips?"

Posted by: Deep Throat at August 11, 2008 08:00 AM (zAvxs)

37 You people need to lighten up. I get all my news from the MSM and it's never done me any harm. You should try to concentrate on serious issues instead like that civil war in Iraq.

Posted by: Mr. Ostrich at August 11, 2008 08:04 AM (Q1lie)

38 I think Jim Treacher said it best a while back:

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Rielle.
Rielle who?
You must get all your information from TV and newspapers!

Posted by: Sean M. at August 11, 2008 08:07 AM (e6v7s)

39 "I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is." Now THAT'S a damning and self-incriminating quote if I ever read one.

Posted by: Trubador at August 11, 2008 08:20 AM (MlrAE)

You're being waaaaay too tough on ABC. If it were not for ABC News, the mainstream media would still be ignoring this story.

The National Enquirer broke the story ... but it was Brian Ross' digging into the money angle that brought Edwards to the microphone.

Once ABC News started "following the money" things started to make more sense. If John Edwards isn't the father, then why is a major campaign donor of his paying for houses all over the country? This is the question that ABC News was trying to answer, and it is the question that brought Edwards to the realization that he had to fess up.

So, please, continue to bash the MSM. It's pretty clear that the NY Times, by its own admission, didn't want to report the story (along with CNN, CBS and the other lefty outfits.)

But you should be thanking ABC News for forcing Edwards out of hiding and in front of a camera with its excellent investigative journalism.

Posted by: abcwatcher at August 11, 2008 08:21 AM (Ncq2X)

Yeah, Jim Treacher, I found myself a few days ago in a social setting with a bunch of people when someone mentioned Edwards for no particular reason. Literally everyone there but me was saying "Hey, where has he gone to?" "His wife must be getting sicker, and he wants to keep it out of the news, poor guy!"

I thought to myself "Yeah, he wants to keep something out of the news, all right." I didn't tell them what I knew, because they would have just called me a liar or worse, and it would have ruined the party for the nice person who was the host. They rely on our civility to help them keep the lid on, don't they?

It is scary to realize how little people who just tune in the MSM know about the real world, and how much control others have over exactly what little bit it is that they know. They should be scared too, but they are only scared of the evil Bushitler McCheneyburton regime suppressing their civil rights. Fools.

Also scary that I don't have any friends with any brains, huh? I am thinking of titling my life Stranger in a Strange Land.

Posted by: sherlock at August 11, 2008 08:26 AM (h6sl7)

42 I'll pass on the abc tongue bath. It had already reported that Hunter was moved to a gated community in NC and then Young and Hunter were moved to Santa Barbara. That takes bucks that neither of them have. Someone was paying for it. Since, Edwards couldn't funnel the money directly to them, he had to use a crony. Working from there it wouldn't be too difficult to figure out it was Baron, especially since he ponied up for the jet.

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 08:27 AM (h4JIA)

43 Sorry - that last was directed to Sean M., not Jim Treacher! Duuuh.

Posted by: sherlock at August 11, 2008 08:29 AM (h6sl7)

44

Layers, honesty, integrity...journalism. Layers of intergrity, like a Napolean, layers of honesty like a lasagna, layers of honest integrity like a baklava. Layer upon layer of journalistic standards, integrity and standards of integrity.

Did the fucks cut Larry Craig's wife any slack? Naaah.

Did they bother looking into this dumb party chick who he was flirting with in public for months, a known cokewhore who was written about by a wonderful heroic author, Jay McInerney? Should the Big Journos taken a crumb of their massive powerful honest staff and poked around?

You should include with posts like these that point our the assholery of these cocksuckers that wonderful pic of that marvelous asshole David MacCucumber from the Seattle paper.

It sums up the pomposity and douchiness in a great way.

Posted by: Rev Dr The Man E Buzz Fucking Fuck Off Fuck at August 11, 2008 08:30 AM (sf4Oe)

45 And the fact that NE had information that Edwards had met with Hunter at the same hotel only a few weeks earlier had to have an effect on Edwards, too. In fact, I think the past couple of weeks Edwards was working fast and furious on his lame denial, complete with his phony offer to take a paternity test knowing full well that Hunter would not allow their daughter to be tested.

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 08:30 AM (h4JIA)

46 So it was integrity that kept the blow job media from reporting on the Edwards affair? I could have sworn it was lack of oxygen to the brain due to having their noses so far up the Democrat's ass that they couldn't breathe.

Posted by: WalrusRex at August 11, 2008 08:31 AM (DVVXZ)

47 It's going on 2 pm and Ace still hasn't rolled out of bed?

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 08:42 AM (h4JIA)

48 Look at seconds 9-12 of this video. Silky and Rielle look very similar.

Edwards had an affair with his female self.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at August 11, 2008 08:45 AM (QcPNi)

49 would not give interviews, was not acting like a man who didn't have something to hide.

Huh? What does this say, that Edwards WAS acting weird?

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at August 11, 2008 08:46 AM (hzWIQ)

50 Weird is normal for Edwards though.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 11, 2008 09:04 AM (Ub4J5)

51 It had already been reported that Hunter was moved to a gated community in NC and then Young and Hunter were moved to Santa Barbara.

Posted by: grc at August 11, 2008 09:05 AM (h4JIA)

52 *cough* Jack Ryan *cough*

Posted by: CUS at August 11, 2008 09:06 AM (bbXZq)

53 ok, i got a modem. how do you attach it to the tubes?

Posted by: Prufrock at August 11, 2008 09:23 AM (vISQb)

54 Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

Posted by: Neo at August 11, 2008 09:29 AM (Yozw9)

55

A woman scorned...

And that douche Edwards caused her to lose the nom.

Amazing...

Posted by: Rev Dr The Man E Buzz Fucking Fuck Off Fuck at August 11, 2008 09:50 AM (kxK0T)

56 I'm not buying that Edwards cost Hillary the nomination, unless you want to say he siphoned off some of the anti-black vote. Hillary is the relative centrist, Edwards is probably to the moonbat side of Obama on the left. Voting on substance, Edwards voters are Obama voters second.

Posted by: Prufrock at August 11, 2008 10:35 AM (vISQb)

57

He siphoned off the vote like that nutty chick hoovered coke back in 1986.

Posted by: Rev Dr The Man E Buzz Fucking Fuck Off Fuck at August 11, 2008 01:09 PM (sf4Oe)

58 Look at seconds 9-12 of this video. Silky and Rielle look very similar.

Edwards had an affair with his female self.

At least it would be sex with someone he loves....

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 11, 2008 01:19 PM (Ds4I5)

59 According to David Gergen, this whole Edwards hubbub is Southern code for a racist slur against Obama, and everyone from the South knows it.

Posted by: SlaveDog at August 11, 2008 01:53 PM (H6Jyg)

60 Carr/New York Times: "I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is..."

Good gawd. That little snippet says so much and pretty much defines legacy media. And this is why increasing numbers of consumers consider the industry as junk. Way to go Columbia School of Journalism, et al. A generation of bullshit artists now seen for what it is with matching respect to boot.

By the time you shills, young and old, decide to report "it," if at all, it's "olds." And probably wrong. And dishonest.

Good thing we finally have modems and intertubes and pajama-wearing rubes to keep us informed.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 11, 2008 02:52 PM (sI5Ho)

61 You're being waaaaay too tough on ABC. If it were not for ABC News, the mainstream media would still be ignoring this story.

Mr. Ross? Brian? Is that you?

Posted by: Desert Cat at August 11, 2008 05:34 PM (6go9w)

62 Kurtz said news organizations were clinging to a very important standard:

In much the same way shit clings to your leg when you are a few seconds away from the toilet during a diarhoeic spasm.

Posted by: cheshirecat at August 11, 2008 10:55 PM (iFfLt)

63 But with questions still looming about the identity of the child's father and the Enquirer standing by its reporting, the blogosphere will probably keep this story alive.

The National Enquirer - now The Paper of Record here in Backwards World. It's gotten that ridiculous.

Posted by: Scott at August 12, 2008 08:11 AM (kSvWi)

64 Backwards World meaning the current state of political coverage by the MSM...

Posted by: Scott at August 12, 2008 08:12 AM (kSvWi)

65 beijing massage center provides the beijing escort girl(http://www.bjeroticgirls.com) tel:13661155123

Posted by: beijing escort at October 09, 2009 12:49 AM (GBMl3)

66 Beijing escort is the best you can get in Beijing City and Shanghai escort for you and your business friends escort Beijingwill ease your boring night in BeijingBeijing escortscan do better than other escort massage shopescorts beijing may be can redirect you to another Escort world.Beijing escorts or VIP Beijing escortsthere is more Escort Beijing and its VIP Escort Beijing for your pleasure and Massage Beijing or VIP Beijing Massage and the finest Beijing Massage with VIP Massage Beijing

Posted by: Vip Beijing escort at November 04, 2009 11:16 PM (D17tr)

67 An excellent resource of information I will certainly return to check on the latest posts.

Posted by: rip dvd to ipad2 at June 10, 2011 07:40 AM (Wi0QP)

Internet is a source of information and knowledge. But there are so many sites in net which are nothing but gibberish. But when I visit your site – I felt that – in net there are lots of sites (like this
) from where I can get lot of information too. And if I say truly – your site is fantastic. I’ve bookmarked your site in my browser; I hope in future days I’ll get more valuable information from your site.

Posted by: how to get rid of acne overnight at December 31, 2011 07:17 AM (QbWEH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment