text:
Your email has been sent.
A debate: Is cyberbullying inevitable, or can parents stop the tide?
It occurs to me, as I write, that a good analogy may be the debate about firearms. Somewhere in my wallet, next to the rarely used gym card, lies a lifetime membership card from the National Rifle Association. I belong to the NRA primarily because I believe that there will always be vile creatures like Kid A slouching around, looking to cause all sorts of anguish, and that if the Kid Bs of this world were left without the means of self-defense, evil will eternally triumph. In other words, rather than have the government (or the parents, or the schools, or the courts) protect me, I'd rather be given the chance to protect myself.
With technology as prevalent as it is, there's little need to worry about regulation or intervention. I watch with dismay as parents and teachers try to impose their authority on what is, by design, a virtual chaos, where nothing is true and everything is permitted. As is the case with sex, drugs, and rock n' roll, I firmly believe that the best way to prepare young people to enter the thicket of the Internet is to instill in them the good taste and common sense they need to navigate through temptation and ruin, and then let them explore on their own.
As they do, they are very likely to come across the mean bastards who make up so much of humanity's ranks. And when they meet those mean bastards, there is no better tactic, I think, then striking swiftly and resolutely, speaking one's mind and standing one's ground. Thankfully, kids now have at their disposal the tools to do just that.
Dear PVDOMENCNMAANMBT:
Seriously? Your response to bad behavior is to encourage worse behavior? If one kid brings a 9mm to math class, the solution is to give the kid at the next desk an Uzi?
Rather than encouraging a kid to use fists and guns and YouTube, a parent's job is to teach healthier ways of self-expression and the importance of kindness. One of the hair-tossing, sneering, Valley-Girl-inflected participants in that video said on camera, "Nobody doesn't talk shit." Grammatically questionable, but factually indisputable. Lashon hara is everywhere. But as parents, we should at the very least teach kids that you don't throw your shit-talking up on the Internet where the object of said feces-spew and her friends and family can see and hear it.
You seem to think my answer to bad online behavior is to regulate technology. That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't believe it's actually possible—look at how successful the TV and recording industries have been at stopping illegal downloading. But I think—and perhaps you find me hilariously naïve—that the world is made up of communities. Not just the big anonymous community that is the Internet, but smaller, Venn diagram-y communities—schools, neighborhoods, religious institutions, families—who know each other in the flesh as well as in the pixel. And a parent's job is to convey the values that will make a child a good, moral member of those communities.
The story here is a father whose kid did something despicable, who not only excused her behavior but also insisted that he was fighting for American values. Feh. The kid is a bully, and the dad is a bully. The daughter offered to take the video down, and the dad wouldn't let her. There was a teachable moment there, and he blew it like a vuvuzela. There was a chance to show Kid A how to do teshuvah—nuke the video, apologize to the girl, accept the school's punishment, get your own punishment at home, and have a serious discussion about values and morals—and Daddy A abdicated that responsibility.
Dear Righteous,
I could not agree with you more that a parent's job is to convey the values that will make a child a good, moral member of his or her community. Which is precisely why I choose to focus on that community—or, more accurately—on the environment in which the kid will come of age. That, I'm afraid, is where technology comes waltzing in.
Marjorie Ingall, a Life & Religion columnist for Tablet Magazine, is the author of The Field Guide to North American Males and the co-author of Hungry.
Long Haul
Some U.S. immigrants to Israel chase both the Zionist dream and an American paycheck
Now I must do teshuva for the harm I am wishing on the Evan Cohen family. They sound like the banality of evil incarnate–and there's a real danger that people with young children will consider them the norm. They are not. Nice kids don't pull that crap, and parents who teach their kids to be nice would clobber them if they did. I have an 18-year-old, and have witnessed her cyber-encounters throughout her tween and teen years. I have seen her friends use the net to console one another in times of tragedy, to share photos and videos of class trips, to encourage one another before tests and auditions and interviews, to support one another in times of transition, etc. Only once in those years has a kid in a Facebook group trash-talked another kid–and the offender was quickly denounced by others in the group. Which is what should happen to the Cohen kid. The only answer is to make sure the bullies are the one who are ostracized.
Hey Liel- "It may be time, then, to wave the notion of lashon hara goodbye…" Seriously? Because we live in an age of moral depravity aided and abetted by social media, we throw decency, civilty and appropriate human to human behavior out the window? You've got to be kidding. Cyberbullying may in fact be the latest and greatest vehicle for lashon hara but that doesn't mean we don't do our damnest to teach our kids it's wrong. What a great springboard Evan Cohen and his family have provided for us that still give a flip about raising decent menschen!
I could not agree MORE with Wendy!! She's hit it right on the head!
"Kid B, arguably, could have easily logged on to her computer, fired up her webcam, and produced a video twice as scathing, twice as funny, and twice as popular." The key word here is "arguably." In reality, kids who are bullied are often those without the social skills, quick tongues, and confidence to avoid being branded a favorite target. It's like saying to a clumsy, meek, physically weak child who's been beaten up, "Hey, tomorrow, go beat that guy up twice as hard! Problem solved." Is Liel's point that we should never defend our kids, or try to keep them out of harm's way, but just let things work themselves out Lord of the Flies-style? Nice.
I didn't need you to specify who does and who doesn't have kids in this debate, Marjorie. It comes through loud and clear.
Oh, Liel! "Technology changes everything" has been the rallying cry throughout history for Romantics who thinks that the current rules don't have to apply to them. I myself spouted it in the early 1990s as one of the early internet evangelists. Then I grew up.
It shows up most clearly in your Retaliation Equation argument. You make the assumption that all people are created equally shitty; and that it is just as easy for Kid B to trash Kid A. As a former Kid B I can assure you that that ain't necessarily so; some people just don't have it in them to bully others, so by no stretch of the imagination is it "just as easy" for Kid B to retaliate. Unfortunately, since your argument relies on that, your argument falls apart at that point.
So what do we do with the kids who, through no fault of their own, grew up polite, respectful, and well behaved?
It would be interesting to learn if Kid B made a request to YouTube to have the video removed – and if they complied or not.
It would be most unfortunate if in this particular community there isn't a friend, teacher or other parent who might teach Kid A a thing or two about ethics – because clearly she isn't going to learn them from her father.
You can call me names if you like, but our case was about the limits on governmental power. Read the decision. The video in question had nothing to do with the school, was not "student speech," and the school had no right to punish anyone over it. Despite the fact that this was none of the school's business, they pressed on with the suspension, even though school boards are losing cases like this all over the country.
As for the video, we disagreed that it was "cyberbullying." The NYT article is inaccurate; the video was posted again after the case was filed to assist the public debate over what is and what is not cyberbullying. It remained on YouTube for over two years without complaint, from anyone.
Evan Cohen
Los Angeles
Mr. Cohen,
I understand that the school system's legal right to punish a student for behavior outside of school was the crux of the matter here. I do have two questions for you. 1) How then does a school system suspend a student for being arrested for smoking marijuana or other less damaging behaviors than your daughter's. and
2) Did you in fact reprimand your daughter in any way for her behavior?
Thank you.
I invite you to read the decision. It is about First Amendment rights. For a school to punish a student because of speech, it must be "student speech," or speech that causes a "substantial disruption" at school. In a separate decision, we also won on the due process issue, which can be summed up as "you can't be suspended for breaking a rule that does not exist."
Whether or not a school can suspend a student for being arrested for an off-campus crime (like drug use) was not the issue and I do not have an opinion on that.
Your comment that the plaintiff's actions were "damaging" is not supported by the facts. She posted the video, and, approximately an hour later, offered to remove the video. The alleged victim told her "no, keep it up for now." The alleged victim came to school the next day with her mother, seeking revenge.
Does that sound like cyberbullying to you? It was not.
Thanks for all the comments.
It's worth noting that this is still a gray area, legally, in a lot of states. (NY State just passed a school anti-bullying law a couple of weeks ago, but it doesn't mention online behavior. MOST state statutes don't.)
As I noted in the Boston Globe article, many of these state statutes will be found to be unconstitutional, at some point. Speech that has nothing to do with school cannot be regulated by the state. How about text messaging during summer vacation? How about a fight at a Saturday soccer game? None of the school's business.
The fact that authorities want to be able to punish students for anything they do and anywhere they do it, is just ignorance on the part of administrators regarding constitutional limits. It just isn't going to be held up. And, if you look at the number of times that the schools have lost this fight, in court, in various states, it really isn't that "grey."
I notice that Mr. Cohen has not responded to Beth's second question in any way. The issue under discussion in this column isn't the legal question of whether the school had the right to punish his daughter. The issue is the moral question of how parents should discharge their responsibilities to raise their kids as decent human beings in an environment where giving vent to one's most vicious inclinations is so easy to do.
The Cohen family may be entirely correct on the legal front, but that says nothing about how they discharged their moral responsibilities. Mr. Cohen, surely you do not believe that your daughter acted appropriately in posting the video in the first place. If you don't, the world wants to know what you did to bring home that moral lesson to your daughter. Or, if you do, how you defend it (without reference to the school's actions).
I have responded to the second question. You may not like the response, but I stand by it.
Your question assumes that this was an act of "cyberbullying," a conclusion with which I do not agree. It was a minor incident, and for which suspension was not even an option. You want to believe what you read in the NYT without even thinking about it. That's your decision.
The lesson of this exercise is: stand up and fight for the Constitution. And I did.
Dear Patrick,
First of all, if you are the same Patrick Di Justo who wrote a magnificent article a few years back about the science of Battlestar Galactica, I'm a fan. As for your argument, I indeed make the assumption that all men were created with an inherent potential for evil, which makes the species that much more interesting. And I, like you, am suspicious of the argument that technology changes everything. In this case, however, it does: even if one does not believe that we all possess the capacity to do harm, one might still argue that, given access to mass media, one could at least learn how to retaliate to slurs made via the very same media. In other words, Kid B needn't have been a bully or a jerk to respond, but could have uploaded a compelling response to YouTube. As both videos, most likely, could've have been hyperlinked and similarly tagged, anyone stumbling across one video would also see the other, and could judge which of the young women in question is the more appealing. I think this is a reasonable scenario, and a very encouraging one — the bullied fighting back with grace and a webcam.
And Mr. Cohen, I fully agree with your arguments and logic. Unlike other commenters, I think that your relationship with your daughter is, and should remain, utterly private. The important issue is the legal one, and your case, I think, sets an important boundary line.
Thanks, Liel, I appreciate it.
The NYT article – perhaps the way it was written — triggered some sort of histrionic moral outrage that was totally uncalled for.
I am proud of our case and the important issues it raised regarding free speech and the role of government in our children's lives.
@Mr. Cohen: My question does not assume whether or not the act in question met the legal definition of "cyberbullying." It merely assumes that the video was intended to be (and was) hurtful to the girl it targeted. You have never denied that. The NYT piece may well be generating uncalled-for histrionics, but your posts have not contained anything that would cause me to rethink my response to this situation. Nor have you said a single word to cause anyone to think that you are not willfully blind to the moral issue here.
@Liel: Your position seems to imply that if a kid is not capable of uploading a "compelling" response, well, then, sucks to be her. Only the strong survive. Isn't that position at odds with the Jewishness of this magazine? Doesn't our tradition prize helping the weak? You genuinely think the moral issue is not as important as the legal one?
So what do you all think about a man who has anger management problems and uses demeaning and caustic language towards a woman (girlfriend), then accuses her of breaking her promise to keep what happens between them secret after he "breaks all ties" with her because she needed support after her feelings were grieviously hurt by his constant slurs and insults. This happened via cellphone, text, and email. Oftentimes someone will discuss such happenings as a form of protection should things escalate in some way.
In another scenario, is it lashon hara for a child to tell someone when their molester has bidden them "not to tell" …
I am asking in the light of the lashon hara aspect … at what point does someone's behavior deserve to not be spoken of to another, which could technically be considered lashon hara, when THEY habitually dish out lashon hara first in very negative ways? Just wondering as studying Judaism and didn't know what lashon hara was growing up.
I admire the chutzpah it takes to claim for Mr. Cohen to claim that he responded to Beth's second question, when any reader here can see that he has not. Perhaps he means that he answered it someplace else (or muttered something under his breath, or something else that ties idiom into a pretzel)? Or that ignoring it completely was his answer? Pro tip: "That's none of your business" is a response; not answering is not.
The guy really hangs in there, and he raises a valid question from a constitutional perspective–I've always been uneasy with schools regulating the conduct of kids outside the context of the school/school-related events, etc. But I disagree with his (your) interpretation.
The thing that makes cyberbullying hard to address is that there's no specific place where it happens, on or off campus–it's nowhere and everywhere at the same time. But as I see it, during the school year, the social life of students is a single continuum from the locker bay to cyberspace. Something that's instantly accessible to the entire student body like this has a huge impact on both the school community and on the ability of an individual student to participate in it. It's like spraying tear gas at the school building from an adjacent lot. Did it happen on school property? No. Does that mean you just ignore it? No again. The school has a responsibility to defend its community and its students, and cyberbullying is no more protected speech than "Fire."
And yes, fair enough that Mr. Cohen's relationship with his daughter is his own business–I feel the same way about mine. What bothers me is the attitude that comes through both here and in the Times piece that he doesn't seem to regard the posting of the video as regrettable or unfortunate in any way. Hey, it happened, and we struck a blow for Freedom of Speech! But isn't worth saying at some point along the line, I'm sorry this happened? Or is the message that this is fine and normal, and kids shouldn't feel any qualms about uncorking their hatred online?
Sorry, Marjorie, cannot help it:
An Uzi is a 9 mm. Or did you think it was a .45 or .50? Then you need a Desert Eagle, to stay with Israel.
Really sorry, again; but with mistakes like that, you undermine your whole argument.
(Of course, a regular Uzi packs two or three times the amount of rounds a "9 mil" has; but I could and would take out the Uzi-toting kid A with that 9 mil. before the kid has lifted her Uzi.)
Mr Cohen
Please forgive my rather limited brain, but I can't find any evidence that you actually did answer the question "Did you in fact reprimand your daughter in any way for her behavior?"
I'm sure this is all my fault. Can you help me to see the light? Did you in fact reprimand your daughter in any way for her behavior?
I am editor-in-chief of VNCcommunicationcounsel. Most of our work is defense-related, hence my first comment. We make it our business to disseminate information that could be of importance to decision makers, or just of interest to any aware citizen of the world community.
I just did a quick refresher on lashon hara and I'm afraid that keeping that commandment would shut down most news and information channels, and more: Criticizing any wrong anywhere on our earth is most often lashon hara. Even the factual comment above about calibers is lashon hara in the strict interpretation.
So I really wonder: Do we really want to stay uninformed of evil and wrongdoing? Do we send our children to school to learn only the nice and cuddly stuff and keep silent about bad neighbours – like e.g. H'zbullah or Fatah? Do we, really? Do we, actually? V'ahavta l'rei'echa kamocha, Love your neighbor as yourself, is one of the underpinnings of the mitzvah against lashon hara – and it may be the essence of Tanach. Good precept. But can we live up to it? Do we? Should we? I digress deep and wide and I shudder at the thought I think. But I must.
Back to the matter at hand, I agree with Evan Cohen and Liel Leibovitz. In this information age, every thing will be discussed all over our earth, a lot of it drivel and viciousness. But parents' relationship with their children is private, no business of this thread, nor of a school, nor of a government. Asking or telling them about their behavior towards them is, we all should be aware of that, lashon hara as well. And we are adults, no kids.
I shudder, but I must ask: Maybe the mitzvoth are all too hard to live by in real life, where we need to act?
I don't know. But let us try to keep the commandment, even while we know we all will and must fail, time and again. Keeping silent too often is the greater harm.
Marjorie, Leil, Evan and all other commenters: Thank you all for the very worthwhile and thoughtful time you gave me.
I stopped reading this when Liel said he has an NRA card.
Ack! Me and my cluelessness about firearms! I thought a 9mm was a handgun! Pathetic. (Not as bad as when I said Frau Blucher was a character in Blazing Saddles instead of Young Frankenstein, but close.) Gah.
You and Liel should totally start a blog to shame me.
We understood what you meant, and the idea that incorrectly referring to types of guns "undermines your whole argument" is nonsense.
Further, I note that Mr. Cohen has not argued that his response to his daughter's action is private. Others are saying so for him. He is merely pretending that the question hasn't been asked and that the answer doesn't matter.
He wants only to talk about the legal issue, while Marjorie wants to talk about the moral issue. And he doesn't seem to recognize that there is one.
There you go again. You don't like the answer, so you pretend I haven't answered it. Moreover, you read three lines in the New York Times about a complex case, and now you think you know everything about what happened. You don't.
Let's do this, one more time. I don't agree that there was cyberbullying in this instance, and so I don't agree with the premise of your question. This is, as we say in the law, a "lack of foundation." "When did you stop beating your wife?" would be analogous. My daughter took a video of some kids talking about another girl. She put it on YouTube, and asked the girl if she (the other girl) wanted it taken down. She said "no, leave it up for now." I'm sorry, that's not cyberbullying, no matter why kind of hysteria you would like to drum up.
This was a minor matter, and yes, the discussions between parents and child are private. Certainly none of the school's business, which was the point of the case. And also none of your business.
I'd like to think you can leave it at that, but, of course, you can't. You — and you know who you are — NEED, yes, NEED to find some moral outrage in all of this, when you should be directing your outrage at the school district that overreacted and BROKE THE LAW regarding the First Amendment and due process.
I win a major victory for civil rights (and I'm not even a civil rights lawyer), and this is the thanks I get?
Luckily not all courts and states are as clueless as that idiot judge in California. I have taught rights and responsibilties to middle school student where I live and interestingly we discussed the curtailment of first amendment rights in school under the law (oh yes, I did graduate from a prestigious law school and deal with civil rights issues on a daily basis)and especially when it pertains to cyberbullying. The question it seems is that the judge in the Cohen case decided that the school could not interfere because the bullying incident, and yes it is bullying whether that useless father likes it or not, did not substantially interefere with the victims access to school. Well unfortunately that judge has no real understanding of what is considered substantial interefere. Here in NY it is as simple if it makes someone uncomfortable to access their education. So luckily we at least have some intelligence here in this state. You can not only be suspended here for cyberbullying of all kinds but you can also be arrested here too depending on the messages sent and removed from the school.It seems not only is the problem with Cohen's inadequate parenting but as ususal, the courts in California really screwed up, This judge obviously has no real understanding of the effect of all kinds of social media on society and especially our children, nor does he have any idea of the limits even on free speech and it how it applies to education.
As far as the Cohen family, that child-bully when she gets out in the real world is going to get a real smackdown and daddy will not be able to do anything about it.She will not even see it coming and have no ability to deal with society as it is. But that is what you get when you raise a human being to be a lousy person.
On another aside, I hope that the bullied girl sues the Cohen family for slander and libel and gets all the money the Cohen's received from the school district and then some.
I highly doubt Elise "graduated from law school," let alone a good one, or even has had any legal training. She can't even spell.
And, if she were a lawyer, she would have read the Court's decision, written by Judge Wilson, a Reagan appointee and generally considered to be a judicial conservative. As can be gleaned by the excellent summary of cases therein, school districts have been losing cases like this all over the country, notwithstanding the abundance of right-wing, authoritarian personalities like Elise. Get over it, Elise, you hack. No "substantial interference." Sorry. If it were up to you, one "mean" text message would land a student in irons, rights revoked, sitting at home, suspended, or, as you apparently want, in jail. You sicken me.
And I know you are not a lawyer, because you would know that libel and slander cases are only meritorious if they contain a provably false assertion of fact, which this video did not. Calling someone "spoiled" is not libel or slander, Elise. If there's any suit to be brought, it's against the law school who let an ignorant fool like you out to prey upon an unsuspecting public. Maybe you can get your money back.
Let's hear it, Elise. Name your law school and the graduating year, so we can verify your claim.
Oh is that supposed to hurt my feelings. Its not a wonder your daughter is a bully, she obviously learned how to be a looser from her father. You can't win an argument so you name call. You really need to grow up.
That's funny. You can't even competently write a couple of sentences. It's "loser," Elise, not "looser."
Go ahead, Elise. What's your law school, idiot? Right. You didn't go to one. You're also a liar. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Name it. And the graduating year. Go ahead. I'll wait right here.
And I've already won the argument.
Actually there is no argument you have proven yourself to be a bully and that is all there is to it. So sad, you are just so sad.
Sad? That's funny. When stupid people run out of things to say, or when they've been called out as a liar, as you have just been, they resort to meaningless phrases like "you're sad." Is that be best you can do?
Now, let's get back to you, Elise. What is the name of the law school you attended? Or, let's talk about why you feel you need to lie about going to law school. Does it make you feel important?
The above exchange between Evan and Elise is such a good example of why it is particularly important to teach our children to walk in the modern world with decency and sensitivity. Look how quickly things degenerated into screeching and name-calling — much more quickly than would have happened in a face-to-face conversation.
Evan, you are technically right on the legal issue. But that kind of interaction between students is ABSOLUTELY the school's business, since it creates, well, let's call it a "hostile school environment" for the child who is the target of the video. Your daughter's school may not have had the right to suspend her, but it definitely should have addressed the matter in some way.
And you are right that discussions between a parent and child are private. But you have chosen to participate in the public discussion, and you feed the flames by refusing to acknowledge that your daughter was wrong in any way. Even if the school district's act was illegal, the video was still immoral. The school's illegal action does not cancel out your daughter's fault.
Moreover, your description of the situation is not very credible. Who puts up a mean video, then immediately turns the the victim and offers to take it down? Why would the victim tell her to leave it up? It just doesn't make sense. So, once again, your comments won't cause anyone to change their minds on the situation.
And don't think it's because the non-lawyers just don't understand. I don't know about Elise, but I graduated from NYU Law. And despite being a lawyer, I still think there is more to this than the legal issue.
While not an attorney, I understand that the LAW was upheld here, but not the ethical obligations of society. I also deal with civil rights issues on a daily basis, though, unlike Elise, I am not an attorney.
In my experience, creating a "hostile work environment" goes against the law, and certainly against justice. Cyberbullying creates that hostile work environment, just as surely as doing it in person. This is an environment that the victim is required to attend every day, and in which God knows how many classmates have seen the video (though it's obvious SHE did – harm done right there, to high school kids with significant peer group insecurity and dependence) and how many Facebook or Twitter sharings that video received…
In my humble opinion, we need to revisit creating a hostile environment for that child, not call each other names. That profits no one, Mr. Cohen. Nor do letters, diplomas and degrees determine intelligence. Never have, never will. We're talking about the right of a student to attend and learn at school without the gossipy nasty trashtalk virally spread throughout a peer group she's stuck with.
Though I appreciate that the school possibly shouldn't have intervened with their own punishment, I do believe that they should have made you award of the situation that your daughter was creating a hostile environment for the victim, and that you should have responded by having her make an apology video and "share" it in all the ways she "shared" the original video.
I like keeping schools out of our private lives. The victim's parents should have sued you and your daughter directly, for defamation of character and harassment. Maybe they didn't know they could, I don't know. I also like though, that the school at least made you aware, which is in their jurisdiction.
Cohens' _legal point made; God bless 'em for taking that stand for personal rights, etc.
Cohens' moral point? How did they reconcile with their neighbor—or isn't that as important as the legal point?
Would they take a stand for personal rights of victims?
I graduated from Boston University. I am also a child advocate particularly for special needs children who happen to be targeted by bullies of all stripes constantly.
What have I missed? Mr Cohen's daughter posted a video of OTHER PEOPLE making nasty remarks about someone else. She encouraged but didn't force them to make their comments, and then she exposed them.
How is the target of their unpleasantness a victim of Mr Cohen's daughter rather than being a victim of the girls who made the remarks Mr Cohen's daughter recorded?
And why all the unpleasantness directed at Mr Cohen here? He calls out someone who claims to be a lawyer because she can't spell and because her insults are idiotic. Is there a law against reasonably suspecting a fool to be a fool, and saying so?
And why the baiting? Answer the question, etc. After the first couple of paras into the NYT report, the question is answered. Considering this is an article apparently concerned with bullying, it's ironic that reading is more onerous than name calling.
Is all this nothing so much as shoot the messenger?
True, while it was a video of OTHER's comments, that does not absolve her from placing the video in public view, nor of "sharing" online. It's ethics, people.
Your rights stop where I begin. Nobody's shooting the messenger, whose messenger was she? Whose messenger is Mr. Cohen?
The real message here is don't do things online that you don't want seen. And apparently, Mr. Cohen is preventing his daughter and himself from learning that lesson.
Clearly Mr. Cohen is too busy patting himself on the back for carrying the banner of free speech to be concerned about the morality of his daughter's and her friends' behavior.
Sometimes it's better to be kind than right.
It is beyond me how someone could be so callous in an age where the media have made the public aware of bullied kids who commit suicide.
However, it is truly heartening to read the very thoughtful and literate responses from readers.
Thanks for your reply, sincerely though, I am still confused. I can't think that you intend to find a moral that says "don't do things online that you don't want seen" because that suggests that it's the publicity which determines the rightness or wrongness of actions.
Wow. My response to all this is:
Yom Kippur is still a couple of months away. There is still time. It is not too late.
Mr. Cohen and Elise can still apologize to each other for their treatment of each other in this comments section.
Perhaps the year has passed in which the video has posted, but Mr. Cohen's daughter and the others in the video can still apologize to the person discussed in the video.
This is not a legal imperative; it is about doing what is right. Even if it wasn't bullying, even if there were no complaints, the things said in the video are hurtful. They are hurtful to the people who said them, they are hurtful to the person being talked about, they are hurtful to others who watched the video.
It is about healing the community. We may hurt each other but we don't have to just leave it at that, even when legally we have every right to do so.
It's not too late.
Dear Susan- I can see that you are a good and heartfelt person. However, it is not appropriate for a parent to allow their child to bully others and it should not be allowed, tolerated nor accepted under the guise of Constitutional rights. Nor should that parent ever be given a free pass.It is only when society holds parents up to the ridicule that they deserve for their lack of parental leadership will society be able to rid itself of all forms of bullying. The bullied child is entitled to be part of the community as well, and when shortshrift is given to their pain and trauma there is no community to speak of worth belonging to. I wish you peace, you are truly a kind person.
Putting aside all of the personal stuff:
This "hostile work environment" issue is not the legal standard regarding when schools can step in and punish. The standard is "substantial disruption," as in the Tinker case. The defendants in the case, and many people on this board, take the issue way too far and argue that "anything" can be a "disruption" that causes hurt feelings and makes the learning environment stressful or more difficult. They want to schools to have the power to punish, to suspend, etc., for anything that one student "does" to another.
Wrong. Not constitutional. When students are outside of school, they have the same free speech rights as anyone else. People call each other names. They get into arguments. They send mean texts and emails. They post mean postings on Facebook. At night. During summer vacation. On weekends. Not at school.
Now, do you want the school to be involved in these off-campus matters? I don't. These matters are none of the school's business. The line must be drawn. Merely coming to school with hurt feelings is not enough to trigger governmental power. There must be disruption AT school, and the judge in this case rightly found that the school's claims of disruption were simply not credible. They overreacted.
And, Jane, your silly little revenge fantasy about me being "sued for defamation" will not be realized. This was not defamation. This was a stupid, juvenile video of some kids talking about other kids. It happened over two years ago. No one cares anymore, it's over.
Elise -
I agree it is not okay for a parent to allow their child to bully others. I heartily disagree that ridicule of the parents is the answer. It's just another form of bullying.
We need to model proper, respectful, constructive behavior to both parents and children, to demonstrate there is a healthier, more healing way to go about things.
Point taken. However, what do you do when you have a child that is a bully and the parents do nothing about it, in fact will not accept that their children did anything wrong. I think societal deriscion is the way to go. We remove from our society people that commit crimes, that is also ridicule of some kind. Bullying is a crime of the soul (as well as assault) and should be dealt with harshly. We have seen the effects of cyberbullying with the suicides of many young people. It is not a minor issue but something that is life effecting for the victim.
Also as an advocate for special needs children there is tremendous evidence that these victim/children suffer from post traumatic stress disorder from the amount of bullying they endure through out school. It is society's responsibility to ensure that these children, the most vulnerable in society, are protected from their abusers. Most are not capable of defending themseleves. They lack without question the necessary social skills to self-advocate and most do not have a posse of friends to back them up. it is why they are easy targets.
It would be very nice, if parents/adults modeled appropriate behavior for their chidlren, however, I have seen first hand parents actively egg their children on and make excuses for their childrens bullying behavior. That is why there has to be a societal code and societal "shunning" if you will for those who help promote or excuse bullying of any kind.
On another note, it is the responsibility of the school to protect and police the children in their midsts. If there is an issue outside of the school that effects their functioning in the school it is the school's job to look into it. There are even rules and laws that govern behavior of that kind.It is a form of abuse and abuse does fall under the purview of the schools.
Interestingly, colleges and univerities are not shy about behavior/bullying codes on and off campus as well. These codes R strictly enforced. It is no joke.
What I suggest we do is follow our laws regarding rebuking those who have done wrong. Try, respectfuly and with kindness, and in private if possible, to show the person the error of their ways. If we do not believe they will listen to us, try to find someone they respect who will have more success. If we know of no such person, and have done all we can, we move on.
Unfortunately, we can't control the behaviour of others. But we can control our own behaviour.
"B'makom she ein anshim, hishtadeil l'hiot ish," which can be translated as, "In a place where nobody is acting human, strive to act human."
Apologies in advance for the use of offensive language (to everyone other than the villain in this piece):
More histrionics. Civil rights lawyers are often insulted by people who are upset they would stand up for the Constitution. Big deal.
SoSad, is that the best you can do? Parrot other people's insults? Apparently.
Evan: In fact, I DO want the school involved in these "off-campus" matters, because I see it as the school's job (as well as the parents' job, of course) to teach children appropriate behavior in a community context. When both children involved are part of the school community, I believe some response on the part of the school administration is wholly appropriate.
It is important that the actors here are not adults. They are children, still in formation, still learning wrong from right. Making this video was wrong. The school was right to send that message to the child who made it.
As a recovering attorney and the parent of an adolescent girl (but! I haven't seen the video, going by snippets; haven't read the court case, either – I tend to avoid the NYT, Zionist that I am) I think: some folks get all cranked by the idea that bullying has taken place and immediately assume they know who the bad guy is. And get moral. Sheesh.
As a parent I know this: you want to stay out of it and only get between the kids (yours, yes, but even more so yours & not_yours) when they squabble when the teeter is totally tottered.
Note: What is it that the State has done, if not bullying in this case? Get cranked about that. Recognize the inordinate power the state (in the form of the School District) can wield, and how tempting it is for School Administrators to wield that power beyond their scope, and you might come at the entire matter less judgmentally. As the courts, in the end, have done. There must be a reason why the Cohens "won" this case.
Because when the State lumbers in mashing trees to catch rabbits, and it is your own child that is treated as a rodent, I can't imagine a single parent who wouldn't (a) uphold the rights of their own child in front of every court in the land when it was patently clear that the bullying came from the powerful arm of the state (where the upfront fees were not an issue, mind you), and (b) privately admonish the hell out of junior for acting in a way that doesn't speak well of the family("another fine mess" would be the least of it).
One thing that keeps coming to mind, the idea that bullies, and I'm still speaking of the behavior of the School District as bully in this vein, bullies are generally the ones that are the most afraid. What is it the Schools are so afraid of? That would be a worthwhile thread to pursue. I'd like to know.
Ranting and name-calling, here and in links posted (U235, what a cesspool your blog is) get a life. Don't need that here, there, anywhere.
The cognitive dissonance in all this is awesome to behold. I am sitting here in Jerusalem, scratching my head. A Jewish magazine, intending to some sort of justice reconcilling post-modernity and Jewish 'sensibility' creates a venue for a discussion on the most basic of Jewish concerns: How we treat each other. The inyan – issue – of LaShon Hara is so serious, it is equated in the Talmud with murder – murdering the Tzelem Elokim/Image of God – within the minds of the deliverer, receiver and of course object/subject.
I take two particular notes about how Mr. Cohen represents of himself through his actions and writings: In the first, it is interesting to note that he ignores the Jewish component of the discussion (as does Liel). In the second, I take note of his name – Cohen. It is a name that tells us he is the progeny of Aharon HaCohen, who is defined as 'Ohaiv Shalom' – lover of peace. Aharon spent his life bringing peace between people. His whole being was dedicated to healing hurt between people. His grandson Evan clearly knows nothing of this and cares less.
On the contrary. He exacerbates the hurt through astounding insensitivity and self-serving sophistry, taking cover behind an inferior set of values. He is a disgrace to his name as well as any notion of what the word 'Law' means. He is part of a Nation that brought Law to the world to make it better, not to use it to insulate oneself from responsibility for their actions and choices and how they impact upon another. A tragic American Jewish tale.
Further, I wonder if he ever says the 'Shma.' You know, the one about God is One. What does One mean? There's no escape, everything is connected, the separations are an illusion. It is not a private a thing between parent and child, because what goes on between them gets played out and manifested once the child walks out the door of her/his home.
To be continued….
There is a simple solution to "cyberbullying". Turn the computer, cell phone or whatever, OFF. Unlike regular bullying, where someone confronts you physically or taunts you, no one is forcing the child to read the emails or text messages. And no one can force a girl to watch Youtube.
To the parents whose children are being bullied:
1. The school has no control over what students do after school and on weekends, beyond trying to educate students about appropriate behavior. I think that's why the court upheld the father's complaint.
2. Take the phone or computer privilege away (from both the bully and the victim), until they become mature enough to use it properly.
IMO, the problem today is that parents are unwilling to take responsibility for teaching values to their kids. They want the schools and the rest of society to do their job. It's like trying to ban pornography or movies or TV with things you don't want your kid to see. TURN IT OFF. Don't allow your kid to watch or listen. But don't deprive the broadcasters of their First Amendment rights, or prevent me from watching adult programs if I want to.
@Snortwood: I think one thing that has people so riled up at Evan on this thread, as well as more generally, is that he has not admitted that your point (b) is at all relevant in this discussion.
I don't think "Turn It Off" is a realistic expectation. That's like depriving your children of all sugar or all non-educational toys — unless you live in a super-homogeneous community, your kid eventually leaves your tiny cocoon and your edicts won't work out in the wider world. PLUS you've deprived your kid of decision-making skills. That's why we need to be explicit about our (Jewish and ethical!) values, AND teach media and technological literacy.
Meanwhile, New York City's Department of Education just proposed a change to the city schools' Discipline Code: now cyberbullying ("intimidating and bullying behavior through electronic communication") will be subject to a disciplinary beat-down. According to our indispensable local resource Inside Schools, the new version of the code will also emphasize counseling, peer mediation, and parent outreach instead of relying so much on suspensions. Which I think sounds good — does anyone learn anything from suspension except "don't get caught"? (Or in some people's case: TIME TO SUE.) I can see counseling and perhaps parent outreach having more impact than mediation…though of course, parent outreach won't work if the parents are also bullies or refuse to acknowledge their child's wrongdoing. On my personal blog I included some links to current research showing that mediation is misguided when it comes to bullying: Mediation assumes that both parties have a valid point of view, but bullying is closer to child abuse: it's just WRONG. Zero Tolerance policies aren't a good approach either; if the punishment for bullying is invariably huge, kids may hesitate to report bullying for fear of retaliation, and kids who bully won't learn strategies to change their behavior — they'll just get booted. (And if their daddies sue, not even that.)
I can tell you what the school is afraid of. It's called Columbine.
Marianna –
Notwithstanding what you WANT, the school CAN'T get involved in off-campus matters without violating constitutional rights.
Off-campus, really? Everything? Really? How about if two kids, in the middle of the summer, call each other names. Maybe one repeats the insult on Facebook that day. The first day of school, two months later, one walks into the counselor's office and says "Johnny hurt my feelings. Johnny is a cyberbully." You want Johnny suspended, right? Is that your solution?
Too bad. No power. Case after case is in accord. The kids are going to have to work it out themselves. The school is not a "super parent."
Ah yes. Columbine. The excuse of ever incompetent administrator. "Hey, we can't have another Columbine around here."
One girl called another girl "spoiled." Someone needs to know that there's a difference between a stupid video and "Columbine."
Mr. Cohen? I had no revenge fantasy…I merely said,"They should have sued you and your daughter…" That was the course open to them. They chose otherwise. Not my call. But if I'd received the response from you that they did, I would have. I would certainly file a harassment complaint.
Having kids who have disabilities makes us much more aware of bullying situations, since our kids are more vulnerable.
In one situation, the bully would stand on the sidewalk (which is public, as you know) and threaten my kids if they rode their trikes down to his end of the block. He brandished a knife on one occasion, and shot my then 5 year old with an air pellet gun. I reported it. His parents made up excuses and alibis and nothing could be done. These helpless situations are made worse by the, "My child can do no wrong" mentality.
We have an obligation to our kids..on both sides. The bullied need to be protected and taught to deal with bullies. The bullies need to be taught as well. They are lacking some sort of social ability, and think they are problem solving by their cruelty, in that people do what they say, or react with them.
It's been said that "to fail tell someone how you feel denies them the opportunity to change". Kids will be kids, but the reason we don't call them adults yet is that they are still growing and in need of guidance.
If we deny them that guidance, they are going to do worse than they currently are.
Rabbi –
Do me a favor and do not make any assumptions about my family history. Your words are false and obnoxious. How dare you. My grandfather was a great man, came to the United States from the Ukraine and respected the law. My father was a great lawyer and taught me well. The case at hand was a scholarly effort to learn the law regarding civil rights, submit well-written and well-researched arguments to the court, and bring about an important lesson of about the limits of governmental power.
Your insults and disrespect towards honest work, and the quest for civil rights, are disgusting to me. Where I come from, Jews fight for their rights and the rights of others. Perhaps it's better that you don't live here. Seriously.
This has been a fascinating discussion- one that I've felt compelled to revisit several times over the course of the last few days. I hope it continues over the course of the week.
I think the issue really falls into 2 areas that, sadly, don't always co-exist in our country. The first is the civil arena- individual rights- fought for and won by Mr. Cohen. The second is the Jewish arena- more about what's good for the community and how we behave as a group.
In the cyberbullying and school power scenario a judgement has been made. But what of the moral and ethical case? What's the ultimate judgement about how the children behaved toward each other, or how some behave toward each other on this blog? The mitzvot provide guidelines for appropriate behavior human to human. But there's no lawsuit against someone not treating you the way you don't want to be treated.
I prefer living along the lines of the moral-ethical arena but am thankful to live in a country where Mr. Cohen can take the civil arena on this issue.
Evan: You are arguing with the extreme of my position, not with my actual argument. The logical extreme of an argument is always a convenient strawman, but rarely useful in elucidating the nuances of a debate or in changing anyone's mind.
There is a whole range of responses that a school can make in any given situation. Part of the school's job is to have the good judgment to tailor the consequence to the act. Suspension may have been excessive in the case of your daughter's video. And it would be excessive in the scenario you just described. But SOME response on the part of the school IS appropriate, because teaching kids to be decent members of a community is part of a school's educational mission.
Mr. cohen,
1- The grandfather I referred to was the original Cohen, Aharon. Not your father's father. So I hope you read legal papers more carefully than you read my words.
2- I am a great champion of the limits on governmental powers. You simply refuse to acknowledge a Jewish discussion of an issue with Jewish legal implications in a Jewish magazine that is addressed on Jewish terms. Defending rights are great. Keep on, keeping on. But it is in and remains revealing how you possess no humility to even acknowledge the Jewish components involved. That, sir, is indeed a disgrace to the progenitor of your entire family line. And I would bet that the knowledge you possess of Aharon HaKohen Ohaiv Shalom could maybe fill a thimble.
3- Insults? Have you no sensibility to at least the tenor of all your postings?
4- For everyone else who actually cares about even being at risk of hurting someone through speech, the all-time expert on Lashon Hara, the Chofetz Chaim (ever heard of him, Evan?) made clear that when one does something in the public arena, they forfeit the protections and remedies that the laws of Lashon Hara provide.
5- Finally, where there is a conflict between man-made American laws, which are not based upon truth or justice (an act can be permitted in one local and felonious in another) and can be changed at the whim of an executive finding or the changed in the balance of political power or the make-up of a court, and Divine Law which has endured for 3700 years and is based solely upon truth and justice, I'll take Halacha any day of the week.
Oh, BTW, I've been gentle with you, Mr. Cohen. And I care not as to whether you 'like me' or not. In that, we are the same. You obviously care not whether you are even likeable. Shabbat Shalom and have an easy fast on Monday night/Tuesday.
What this article is all about?
Maybe this bully Dad and bully girl legally got away with it, but what are they going to say to the great Judge in the Sky this Yom Kippur ?
I certainly know what The Judge is going say to them: How you treat others is how I am going to treat you. Beware.
Sometimes the recipient of bullying provokes the attack, and sometimes he or she is simply a victim. Either way, bullying hurts everyone. Parents should consider what kind of child they want to raise: a child that is secure and empathetic enough to be kind and strong and self-possessed enough to stick up for what is right seems to be ideal. Evan might have a lovely daughter who simply made a mistake (all kids do). Sadly, for her most of all, he is not teaching his child kindness or integrity. His energies are tragically misplaced. Perhaps this has been all too public for him to recant. Humility seems to come hard to him. Hopefully, for his daughter's sake, he can support her own efforts to do the right thing. She had a great instinct–to take it down. He needs to help her make amends. If he can't, then he must let her find her own way, not quash her healthy desire to make up for wrongdoing. If she doesn't take some kind of responsibility for her actions now, she will be harmed by this event more than Evan can appreciate.
Final thought: It's so interesting to make note of the fact that the article and comment thread about how we treat each other has come during the Three Weeks/Nine Days/Tisha B'AV period which is all about destruction that results from the horrible ways we treat each other through 'free speech.'
How much more horrible when evil speech is broadcast so that everyone can participate in the sin. Interesting.
Are you people still talking about this?
Jordana, your comments are abhorrent to me. Fighting for civil rights — "tragically misplaced"?? Someone had to stand up for the Constitution. That person was me. I'm sorry you feel ashamed about such things. Do you live in the United States? It doesn't sound like it.
And, for the 63rd time this month, I will say this again: The video was put up AFTER the case was filed, because of the public debate. The NYT article was inaccurate; the offer to take the video down was BEFORE the case was filed, but the alleged victim WANTED IT KEPT UP. Read the case. Does that sound like "cyberbullying"?
Jordana, get a clue.
Yes, Evan, shockingly, people are still interested in issues of decency, and in reconciling the requirements of the law with those of the heart. You're the one in desperate need of a clue.
Marianna –
Time for you to join the "get a clue" club.
"Decency" also means treating citizens with respect and not arbitrarily infringing on their civil rights. We addressed this outrage, and we won. What have you done for the Constitution…ever?
Now, go wag your self-righteous finger at someone else, and stop cyber-bullying me.
I've done plenty for the Constitution, actually, but that is neither here nor there.
Tell me, why do you refuse to acknowledge any component to this discussion other than the legal one? Is it so difficult to conceive that the law may not be all there is to it? When you say that "citizens" should be treated with respect, do you genuinely believe that it is only the government that has that obligation? Is it possible, just maybe, that "citizens" should also treat each other with respect? Is "respect" just limited to "not infringing on their civil rights" or does it have a broader meaning?
I don't think so that it is possible. It is very hard to have a check on the child's activities on the net. You can't spend all the time with your child. I think it is not good to have severe check as it may disturb the child mentally.
hello there and thank you in your info ? I have certainly picked up anything new from proper here. I did on the other hand expertise some technical issues the usage of this site, since I skilled to reload the web site lots of times prior to I could get it to load properly. I have been wondering in case your web hosting is OK? No longer that I'm complaining, however sluggish loading cases times will sometimes have an effect on your placement in google and can harm your quality rating if advertising and ***********
I truly do love engaging with your firm. Your word wide web layout may be very easy in the eye. You have a very good great destination for a shop. I extremely enjoyed navigating along with ordering through your site. It is rather, very user friendly and easy to use. Great job with a fabulous web-site.
You could possibly should a put a forum site against your blog to help improve reader interaction
hello!,I like your writing very a lot! share we keep in touch extra about your post on AOL? I require a specialist in this house to solve my problem. Maybe that's you! Looking ahead to see you.
we like watching Dancing with the stars, the actresses and actors that joins it are nice.,
I used to be very pleased to find this web-site.I wished to thanks to your time for this wonderful learn!! I definitely having fun with each little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you blog post.
'Exodus: Gods and Kings' is a shoddy imitation of 'Price of Egypt'5:17 PM —
Who needs Christian Bale as Moses when Val Kilmer did a brilliant job in the 90s?
Brooklyn Cantor Leaves Rikers Early3:20 PM —
Baruch Lebovits, who pleaded guilty to child molestation in May, served less than three months
Hitler's Deputy Thought He Was Being Poisoned3:13 PM —
Rudolf Hess' prison food is being photographed for the first time.
'Ghostbusters' for Libertarians1:30 PM —
How the 1984 paranormal comedy ended up in the conservative film canon
'Transparent' is the Most Jewish TV Show in a While—and it's Great12:29 PM —
Jill Soloway's latest offering is absorbing, sincere, and tender
My Husband Wanted to Break the Fast Early and I Didn't11:15 AM —
A case of how doing what seems wrong can also be what's right
Is Baseball's Rod Carew Jewish?10:30 AM —
Setting the record straight on the Hall of Famer's 69th birthday
A Brief History of a Fowl Custom9:50 AM —
Talmudic scholars have never agreed on the pre-Yom Kippur chicken sacrifice
Watch Israeli President Reuven Rivlin's Moving Anti-Racism Message9:13 AM —
Rivlin joins 11-year-old George Amira, whose anti-bullying video went viral
Orthodox Man Refuses To Sit Next to Feminist Activist on AirplaneBy Elana Sztokman — Elana Sztokman flies the not-so friendly skies home to Israel
It's Never Too Late To AtoneBy Etgar Keret — Even if the person you wronged doesn't remember what you did, it can still make a difference to ask for forgiveness. Maybe.
How To Say You're SorryBy Marjorie Ingall — As Yom Kippur approaches, I'll share what I've learned about how to apologize—and how not to
The Most Important Thing Netanyahu Did in New York Wasn't at the U.N.
Facebook, Unchain Me!
My Jewish Feminism: A Memoir
The Truth About Israel and Dissent
El Al Petition Seeks to End Gender Discrimination
How Time's Arrow and the Phrygian Half-Step Make Jewish Music Holy
Twitter: tabletmag
- Brooklyn cantor jailed for child molestation leaves prison early: http://t.co/woBpFsAxSL
Basya Schechter Mixes Prayer Songs With Brass, Oud, and Radiohead
On a new album, the captivating leader of the band Pharaoh's Daughter reclaims the music that dominated her religious childhood
Love Syndrome: Israel Story, Episode 2
Chaya Ben Baruch's sixth child was born with Down syndrome. Then she did what every good mother does—set out to find him a mate.
Leonard Bernstein: A New Look at His Rise, His Foibles, and His Impact on Music History
The dynamic conductor and genius behind 'West Side Story' also wrote classical works. Allen Shawn explores what they reveal.
- Debut Novelist Yelena Akhtiorskaya on Misery, Writing, and Brighton Beach
- Review: "This Is Where I Leave You"
- Buzzfeed Hipsters Sample Jewish Food For the First Time
- Brooklyn's Best Vintage Store Also Supports Jewish Kids With Serious Illnesses
- My Evening with LeAnn Rimes & the LA County Sherriff
- A Conversation with Jim Marchese of Real Housewives of New Jersey
- Edge of Tomorrow: At 91, Grandma reflects on the state of the world and her soul for Rosh Hashanah
- Brian Finkelstein?s one-man show: Suicide, untimely deaths, masochism and humor


text:
Museums & Galleries
Stepantsminda History Museum
The museum is set in the childhood home of writer Alexander Kazbegi (1848–93), 300m north of Kazbegis moedani. Kazbegi made the unusual decision to become a shepherd after studying in Tbilisi, St Petersburg and Moscow. Later he worked as a journalist and wrote the novels and plays that made him famous.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
DULUTH, MN (KDAL) - The National Bank of Commerce has signed a letter of intent to be a tenant in the proposed 80 million dollar downtown Duluth office building. The upper floors of the building at 425 West Superior Street will serve as the national headquarters for Maurices and the skywalk level will be occupied by the bank according to NBC CEO Steve Burgess. The current downtown location of the bank at 1314 East Superior Street will still remain operational after the new facility opens. The National Bank of Commerce also has locations in Superior, Hermantown, Poplar and Solon Springs.
The Rush Limbaugh Show 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM
On Air Now.


text:
JUMPOFF TV DEBATE: Riri & Breezy Trainwreck =
You know, what actually got me about this debate was more the topic at the end. The question was asked is Rihana a hoe. It made me really start thinking. How do women REALLY earn these labels?
And I don't even mean her alone. Rihana, Kim Kardashian, Amber Rose… how do these women just snag the hoe tag out of basically thin air? I mean, lets honesty look at the facts…
Amber: Kanye West, Wiz Kahlifah
Rihana: Chris Brown, Drake (maybe), The NFL cat.
Kim K: Ray J, Reggie Bush, Kris Humphires, Kanye West.
These are in fact the ONLY men mentioned with these women. We're assuming they've had sex with em, but a look at the list and the history shows that 90% of these were actual relationships. And please miss me with the talk of Kim's sex tape. She and her boyfriend filmed themselves gettin busy. PLENTY of couples do/have done that… It just so happens that yours didn't leak. And newsflash, if it did, its would NOT make the news because nobody would give a shit because you ain't famous. So again where's the hoe role? When exactly does 4 men (tops) transform into "she's fucked everybody."
Dude…EVERY WOMAN I KNOW HAS HAD MORE THAN FOUR BOYFRIENDS.
If you're over twenty years old fellas, chances are, the same applies to you… including your girlfriend now. You just don't know how many or who because she ain't famous and nobody cares enough to tell you and unless the number was outlandish or you were already unhappy it probably wouldn't matter anyway.
Fellas' is your ego so fragile, your self confidence so shaky, that you can't handle the concept/reality that your/any woman has been with more than just you? ESPECIALLY knowing that her number probably doesn't hold a candle to yours.
Ladies, with all the dirt you've done or freaky-deaky you've pulled off for that special (or not so special) guy, the stuff you pray never goes public that your BFF doesn't even know about, are you really going to judge a woman who's confirmed count is lower than or equal to yours?
So again I'll ask, are these women really hoes? And if so… compared to who??
But hey… I'm just talkin. What do I know?
I Can Explain…! Coming soon


text:
Bank fees go on, even beyond death
Your accounts can still be charged for years after you die, and there's no federal law to stop it.
In an America where discounted "compassion fares" have been squeezed out by airlines cutting capacity and shrinking bathrooms, it turns out that the dead can be charged bank fees legally for years after they pass on.
David Lazarus of The Los Angeles Times relayed the story of California resident Marco Bersane, who died of a heart attack in March at age 56 but had $12 a month deducted from his $1,175 checking account by Bank of America (BAC) each month afterward.
Even though Bersane died without a will, Section 13100 of the California Probate Code dictates that bank accounts with less than $150,000 can be claimed by a deceased person's heirs after 40 days.
Bersane's 32-year-old son, Rocco Bersane Jr. of North Carolina, spoke with the bank and was left believing that the paperwork for recovering his father's money was so complicated, it could require hundreds of dollars up-front in attorney fees, which would take a huge percentage out of the sum in question.
However, under California law, funds in inactive bank accounts must be handed over to the state for safekeeping after three years. During that three-year period, even though the bank knows that the elder Bersane won't be coming around to collect, it can keep charging fees to maintain the account. Even if it knows there's an heir to the money.
Back in March, Bersane Jr. sent Bank of America his father's death certificate, to which the bank responded that it "closed our case for Rocco Bersane" and has "taken appropriate action on the financial relationship based on the information we've been provided." Basically, it's going to take $400 or so out of the account over the next three years because California law says it can.
There are no federal laws to help out family members in cases like these, which a spokeswoman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said typically fall under state regulation. Betty Riess, a spokeswoman for B of A, said the bank's policy in the event of a customer's death is to stop charging account fees "for up to six months" so that family members can get their affairs in order. However, Bank of America started charging fees in May, which Riess called "a mess-up on our part."
While Lazarus calls for more stringent federal rules dictating what should become of cash left in bank accounts once their owners die, Bankrate notes that there's still a limbo period between when a person dies and when their estate is settled where banks can charge fees. While one would hope that a six-month grace period like the one touted by B of A would cover that span, it's tough to place much trust in an institution that has a tough time distinguishing between the living and the dead.
I found out about this when my brother died. It was infuriating and sickening. So, I found all my brother's account information and just took it out like it was him.
Even worse...my brother owed a local gas company 400.00. The owners are people we grew up with so I sent them a copy of my brothers obit so they knew he died. But they sent a letter back saying that "the Estate" now owed the money. I told them my brother died penniless. They continued to send the bills. I heartily encouraged them to sue us...In fact I welcomed a lawsuit with great gusto...because they would have incurred thousands in legal fees and got nothing.
Once they realized this, they stopped sending bills. What jackholes.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market finished the Tuesday session on the defensive after spending the entire day in a steady retreat. The S&P 500 (-0.6%) posted its third consecutive decline, while the small-cap Russell 2000 (-0.9%) slipped behind the broader market during afternoon action.
Equity indices were pressured from the start following some overnight developments that weighed on sentiment. The market tried to overcome the early weakness, but could not stage a sustained rebound, ... More
More Market News
A light news day combined with heavy technicals weighed on the market.
- Shared
- Commented
- Viewed
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'


text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
|White Christmas
theatrical release poster
|Directed by
|Michael Curtiz
|Produced by
|Robert Emmett Dolan
|Written by
|Music by
|Irving Berlin
|Loyal Griggs
|Editing by
|Frank Bracht
|Paramount Pictures
|Distributed by
|Paramount Pictures
|Release dates
|Running time
|120 minutes
|United States
|Box office
|White Christmas
theatrical release poster
|Directed by
|Michael Curtiz
|Produced by
|Robert Emmett Dolan
|Written by
|Music by
|Irving Berlin
|Loyal Griggs
|Editing by
|Frank Bracht
|Paramount Pictures
|Distributed by
|Paramount Pictures
|Release dates
|Running time
|120 minutes
|United States
|Box office
White Christmas is a 1954 American musical film directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney, and Vera-Ellen, loosely based on the 1942 film Holiday Inn.[2] Filmed in Technicolor, White Christmas features the songs of Irving Berlin, including the title song, "White Christmas." Produced and distributed by Paramount Pictures, the film is notable for being the first to be released in VistaVision, a wide-screen process developed by Paramount that entailed using twice the surface area of standard 35mm film. This large-area negative was used to yield finer-grained standard-sized 35 mm film prints.
On Christmas Eve, 1944, somewhere in Europe, two World War II U.S. Army buddies, one a Broadway entertainer, Bob Wallace (Bing Crosby), the other a would-be entertainer, Phil Davis (Danny Kaye) give a show to the troops of the 151st Division in a forward area. But the mood is somber: word has come down that their beloved commanding officer, Major General Thomas F. Waverly (Dean Jagger), is being relieved of command. He arrives for the end of the show and delivers an emotional farewell. The men give him a rousing send-off ("The Old Man"). An enemy artillery barrage ensues, and Davis saves Wallace's life by carrying him out of the way of a toppling wall, wounding his own arm slightly in the process. Using his "wounded" arm and telling Bob he doesn't expect any "special obligation", Phil convinces Bob to join forces as an entertainment duo when the war is over. Phil using his wound to get Bob to do what he wants becomes a running gag throughout the movie.
After the war, the pair make it big in nightclubs, radio and then on Broadway. Becoming successful producers, they eventually mount their newest hit musical entitled Playing Around. Phil is increasingly concerned that his pal Bob has not met a woman with whom he can settle down and several clumsy attempts to set him up with showgirls fail.
In mid-December, after two years on Broadway, the show is in Miami, where they receive a letter from "Freckle-Faced Haynes, the dog-faced boy," their mess sergeant from the war, asking them to audition his two sisters. When they go to the club to audition the act ("Sisters"), Phil notices that Bob is smitten with Betty (Rosemary Clooney), while Phil has eyes for her sister, Judy (Vera-Ellen).
Following their number, Betty and Judy join Bob and Phil at their table, and believing he may have found the right woman for Bob, Phil brings Judy on to the dance floor so that Bob and Betty can get to know each other better. Phil and Judy hit it off ("The Best Things Happen While You're Dancing"), and Judy tells Phil that she and her sister are headed for the Columbia Inn in Pine Tree, Vermont, where they are booked to perform over the holidays. Back at the table, Betty reveals to Bob that Judy, not their brother, sent them the letter. The two get into a brittle argument, and the prospects for a romance seem doubtful.
When Betty and Judy's landlord claims the sisters burned a $200 rug and is trying to have them arrested, Phil hears the news and helps them escape out the window, giving the sisters his and Bob's sleeping-room accommodations aboard the train to Vermont.
To give the sisters time to make it to the train, Phil convinces Bob to don Betty and Judy's forgotten costumes and lip-sync "Sisters" from a record, after which they arrive on the same train two hours later. The sisters are all over Bob in appreciation for giving up their sleeping accommodations and Phil uses "his arm" once again to convince Bob to travel with Betty and Judy to Vermont for the holidays ("Snow").
When everybody arrives to put on the show at the Pine Tree Ski Lodge, there's not a flake in sight, and the weather is so unseasonably warm, chances of it falling appear dim. Bob and Phil discover that the inn is run by their former commanding officer, General Waverly. Waverly has invested all of his savings and pension into the lodge, which is in danger of failing because of the lack of snow and consequent lack of guests.
Deciding to help out and bring business up to the inn, Wallace and Davis bring the entire cast and crew of their new musical Playing Around, and add in Betty and Judy where they can. At the same time, Bob and Betty's relationship starts to bloom ("Count Your Blessings") and they begin to spend a good deal of time together. Meanwhile, Bob discovers the General's rejected attempt at rejoining the army, and decides to prove to the General that he isn't forgotten.
Bob calls Ed Harrison (Johnny Grant), an old army buddy, now the host of a successful variety show (intentionally similar to that of variety show pioneer Ed Sullivan). Bob tells Ed that he wants to make a televised pitch to all the men formerly under the command of the General, asking them to come to the inn on Christmas Eve as a surprise.
In response, Harrison suggests they go all out and put the show on national television, playing up the whole "schmaltz" angle of the situation and generating lots of free advertising for Wallace and Davis in the process. What Bob doesn't know is that nosy housekeeper Emma Allen (Mary Wickes) has been listening in to the phone conversation on the extension but has only heard about the whole schmaltz suggestion, hanging up before Bob rejects the idea.
Mistakenly believing that her beloved boss will be presented as a pitiable figure on a prime-time coast to coast broadcast, Emma reveals what she heard to a shocked Betty who is originally loath to believe Bob would pull such a stunt for his own gain, but mistakenly comes to believe he would indeed stoop to such depths.
The misunderstanding causes a now-disillusioned Betty to grow suddenly cold toward a baffled Bob. Unaware of the real reason for her sudden change of behavior, Judy becomes convinced that Betty, ever-protective of her little sister, will never take on a serious relationship until Judy is engaged or married. She pressures an extremely reluctant Phil to announce a phony engagement, but the plan backfires when Betty abruptly departs for New York City, having received a job offer.
Distraught, Phil and Judy reveal to Bob that the engagement announcement was phony, and Bob, still unaware of the real reason behind Betty's annoyance, heads to New York to explain. Bob goes to see Betty's new act ("Love, You Didn't Do Right By Me") and reveals the truth about the engagement, but is called away by Ed Harrison before he can find out what is really bothering her. Meanwhile, back at the Inn, Phil fakes an injury to distract Gen. Waverly so he won't see the broadcast or Bob's announcement.
On the broadcast, Bob proceeds to ask the veterans of the 151st Division to come to Pine Tree, Vermont, on Christmas Eve ("What Can You Do With A General"). When Betty is backstage between performances, she catches Bob's pitch on a television set and realizes she was mistaken. She returns to Pine Tree just in time for the show on Christmas Eve. Emma convinces Gen. Waverly that all his suits were sent to the cleaners and suggests he wear his old uniform to the opening of the show. Initially reluctant, he agrees. When the General enters the lodge where the show is to take place, he is greeted by his former division, who sing a rousing chorus of "The Old Man." Just as the following number ("Gee, I Wish I Was Back In The Army") ends, he is notified that snow is finally falling.
In the finale, Bob and Betty declare their love for one another, as do Phil and Judy. The background of the set is removed to show the snow falling, everyone raises a glass, and toasts, "May your days be merry and bright; and may all your Christmases be white."
Cast notes
All songs were written by Irving Berlin. The centerpiece of the film is the title song, first used in Holiday Inn, which won that film an Oscar for Best Original Song in 1942. In addition, Count Your Blessings earned the picture its own Oscar nomination in the same category.
The song "Snow" was originally written for Call Me Madam with the title "Free," but was dropped in out-of-town tryouts. The melody and some of the words were kept, but the lyrics were changed to be more appropriate for a Christmas movie. For example, one of the lines of the original song is:
Free – the only thing worth fighting for is to be free.
Free – a different world you'd see if it were left to me.
A composer's demo of the original song can be found on the CD Irving Sings Berlin.
The song "What Can You Do with a General?" was originally written for an un-produced project called Stars on My Shoulders.
Trudy Stevens provided the singing voice for Vera-Ellen, except for "Sisters", where Rosemary Clooney sang both parts. When the time came to record the soundtrack album, Clooney's contract with Columbia Records made it impossible for her to participate, therefore Peggy Lee stepped in. A soundtrack album with Crosby, Kaye, Clooney, and Stevens was not released until the recent CD anniversary reissue, in which the songs were taken directly from the film.
There are brief renditions of other Berlin songs ("Heat Wave", "Let Me Sing and I'm Happy" and "Blue Skies").
Berlin wrote "A Crooner – A Comic" for Crosby and his planned co-star Donald O'Connor, but when O'Connor left the project so did the song. Crosby and Kaye also recorded another Berlin song ("Santa Claus") for the opening WWII Christmas Eve show scene, but it was not used in the final film; their recording of the song survives, however.[citation needed]
Filming took place between September and November 1953. The movie was the first to be filmed in Paramount's new VistaVision process, with color by Technicolor, and also introduced the Perspecta directional sound system which used three inaudible tones in order to pan the monaural sound into either left, center or right.
White Christmas was intended to reunite Crosby and Fred Astaire for their third Irving Berlin showcase musical. Crosby and Astaire had previously co-starred in Holiday Inn (1942) – where the song 'White Christmas' first appeared – and Blue Skies (1946). Astaire declined the project after reading the script[2] and asked to be released from his contract with Paramount.[3] Crosby also left the project shortly thereafter, to spend more time with his son after the death of his wife, Dixie Lee.[3] Near the end of January 1953, Crosby returned to the project, and Donald O'Connor was signed to replace Astaire.[3] Just before shooting was to begin, O'Connor had to drop out due to illness and was replaced by Danny Kaye, who asked for and received a salary of $200,000 and 10% of the gross.[2] Financially, the film was a partnership between Crosby and Irving Berlin, who shared half the profits, and Paramount, who got the other half.[3]
Within the film, a number of soon-to-be famous performers appear. Dancer Barrie Chase appears unbilled, as the character Doris Lenz ("Mutual, I'm sure!"). Future Academy Award winner George Chakiris also appears[4] as one of the stone-faced black-clad dancers surrounding Rosemary Clooney in "Love, You Didn't Do Right by Me". John Brascia leads the dance troupe and appears opposite Vera-Ellen throughout much of the movie, particularly in the "Mandy"and "Choreography" numbers. The photo Vera-Ellen shows of her brother Benny (the one Phil refers to as "Freckle-faced Haynes, the dog-faced boy") is actually a photo of Carl Switzer, who played Alfalfa in The Little Rascals, in an army field jacket and helmet liner. A scene from the film featuring Crosby and Kaye was broadcast the year after the film's release, on Christmas Day 1955, in the final episode of the NBC TV show Colgate Comedy Hour (1950–1955).
Unfortunately - unlike many other musicals of the 1950s which have been able to be remixed to Stereo or 5.1 - it is impossible to do this for White Christmas, due to the fact that although the picture was released in an extremely limited fashion with a full three-channel stereo mix carried on 4-track mag release prints, no complete true stereo print has ever been able to be assembled from all known elements.
In addition - all the original separate recording angles for both the pre-records and post-records for the picture were destroyed in a fire, and all that remains is a magnetic high-fidelity monaural music master, prepared for international release, and a low-fidelity optical mono composite master which includes all dialogue, sound effects and other elements. These were restored and combined for the Criterion Collection LaserDisc release, however on the newer releases, the monaural composite occupies the front center and the magnetic music-only track is fattened up a bit and placed in the surrounds by itself.
This film was enormously popular with audiences, earning $12 million in theatrical rentals[5] – $102.7 million in 2012 dollars, adjusted for inflation[6] – making it the top moneymaker of 1954 by a wide margin. The second highest moneymaker of that year, The Caine Mutiny, earned $8.7 million.[7] Overall, the film grossed $30 million at the domestic box office.[1]
A stage adaptation of the musical, titled Irving Berlin's White Christmas premiered in San Francisco in 2004[8] and has played in various venues in the US, such as Boston, Buffalo, Los Angeles, Detroit and Louisville.[9][10][11][12][13][14] The musical played a limited engagement on Broadway at the Marquis Theatre, from November 14, 2008 until January 4, 2009. The musical also toured the United Kingdom in 2006 - 2008. It headed to the Sunderland Empire in Sunderland from November 2010 to January 2011 after a successful earlier run in Manchester.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to White Christmas (film).


text:
Sleeping Easier with Back Pain
Is back pain keeping you awake? Try these seven tips for sound sleep.
By Jennifer Warner
Reviewed By Charlotte Grayson
Back pain can make it hard to get a good night's sleep . But by experimenting with a few different simple sleep strategies, you can help ease your back pain and prevent future problems.
"First you have to start off with the understanding that there is no perfect position for everybody to sleep in," says Joel M. Press, MD, medical director of the Center for Spine, Sports & Occupational Rehabilitation at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. "Generally you have to listen to your body."
Here are some sleeping tips Press recommends:
Published Jan. 14, 2004.
SOURCE: Joel M. Press, MD, medical director, Center for Spine, Sports & Occupational Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.
©1996-2005 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.
Last Editorial Review: 1/31/2005 7:22:53 AM


text:
Read by Hollywood's finest, professional narrators and authors too. At Audible you own your books. Audible is not a streaming or rental service.
Listen with the free Audible app on your smartphone or tablet, or on your iPod or computer.
Join us. You can't beat the offer - your first book free! After your free trial you'll get one book every month for just $14.95, your choice, from Audible's 150,000+ titles.
Questions? We're here to help 24/7.
Call anytime (888) 283-5051
After your free trial, you'll get a book every month for just $14.95, that's nearly 50% less than the non-member price per book.
Not happy with a choice you made? Exchange it for another title, any time, no hassles.
Change, hold or cancel your membership at any time. Your service will continue unless you choose to cancel.
Questions? We're here to help 24/7.
Call anytime (888) 283-5051
The drug is called Lingo, and it's the most powerful narcotic Lenore has ever seen. This cheaply manufactured pill races straight for the brain's language center, supercharging it so that even a dimwitted person can speak and read at 1,500 words per minute. It induces giddiness, confidence, and sexual euphoria - with a side effect of murderous rage. The drug has come to Quinsigamond, a fading industrial center in the heart of Massachusetts, and it's going to tear this town apart.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Amid the post industrial decay of Quinsigamond glitters a fabulous jewel - Herzog's Erotic Palace - America's most lavish porn theatre and a gangland laundry for semi-sour cash. But most of all, Herzog's is the place where dreamers meet, seductive nightmares find their dazzling realization, and a former triple X film director, a ruthless gangster, and photographer's son dangerously cross paths.
This is a crime novel set in a decaying New England factory town, where Detective Hannah Shaw tracks down a demented ex-FBI agent who has murdered an activist priest. Jack O'Connell is also the author of Word Made Flesh, The Skin Palace, and Box Nine.
"Vealshank" Tani's life ends in an abandoned train station. The killers don't just torture Tani, they skin him and hang him from a steal beam as a treat for the carrion eaters. This grisly scene wouldn't matter to Gilrein, a cabbie who knows to mind his own business, except that he spent the evening as Tani's chauffeur. Whether he knows anything or not, his life is now a liability to August Kroger, kingpin and rare-book addict—and enemies of Kroger do not live long.


text:
Birthday: June 9
Hometown: Los Angeles, CA
Where You've Seen Her: If you're searching for a satisfying eargasm (and eyegasm), look no further than this smokin' hot DJ. Longtime friend of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, this sexy entertainer has climbed the ladder of the Los Angeles party scene and flipped it into a real career. She played the role of Brooke in season five of Entourage and appeared in films Sorority Row and Frat Party. Now, with her own electronic radio show, Heartbeatz, and Billboard.com web series, DJ Diaries, this multitalented beauty is taking over the controls - literally and figuratively.
Get to know another girl, Nazneen Contractor, and check out Maxim's October cover girl, Christina Aguilera.
DJ/Actress Caroline D'Amore
September 12, 2013


text:
AddictionControl Time... Does My Addiction Control ME or Do I Control My Addiction? What am I referring to? Do I know the difference? Can Changing my Attitude Change Me?
Yes Yes Yes.... I am on this site to get what I think I want!!! Happiness YEA... A Man...A MillionaireMAN... wow Wow WOW... DO you know what it takes to BE A REAL ONE.
GUTS...Perserverance... Hard Knocks that rip Your Heart OUT and Keep you Going...and Going AND Never NEVER Giving UP...
Thats The KIND of KIND Millionaire for ME in this SITE... I am QUESTING... AND REQUESTING
Loving Oneself FIRST... thats The Answer. No Perfect Prince rides in His Chariot and Wisks HER off her feet. What a Fantasy! To you Felines on The Hunt, look in the Mirror and re-evaluate priorities.
First...Look at yourseld and BE what you desire...When accomplishing that SIMPLE task. Oh not simple at all...to change oneself. Pretty difficult, I'd say ...if not impossible.
He wants it ALL... The Perfect Woman.
Where are You? Miss Perfect... Something somewhere out there... LOOKS Fantastic... ACTS Impeccable...Is The One!!
Look Again...Millionaire
Be what You are Seeking FIRST... A CLASS ACT is worth following.
Facetious mining and gas leaks and all that jazz. It's a country worth living in.... I now reside here. Coming from the North and igloos and sleds etc....what can i say. Some like it hot!! yea Florida. But. On the other hand. Sea and sand and nothing heavy to wear. Really mean ...nothing. Barely a shovel in sight. No snow. No chair lifts. No long lines at the hills.
No hills... either. Not a bloody hill in sight. 'Cept that garbage heap over near Pompano. Can u smell the heap off the 95.
Driving south i smell the crap. Gas coming , Out those spouts. Must be methane. Wow.
Love it here.....
Chemistry, try it sometime. h2o and co2 and some of Dave's hot sauce. I was hoping that this kind of blog would get your attention... What is she making in this concocktion. Spell that on for size. A real live chick trying to meet a real live **ck (fill in the blank)...
Need to make magic and mystery and what-ever-comes next. It's futile blogging something R*e*a*l. Cannot fathom what that is on an ethereal match-site... Fantasy or is it real???
PLEASE .... on the 4th FULL MOON a luxury not to be believed. Tell me this is NOT to be. I now, find out....
Witches and sticks ride together.
Chemistry 101.... this is a joke,,, you know...right>>
This is the time. Some many years ago. Ship drenched and tired they came aground. With hope in their sight. Corn forthcoming and dreams of burgers and charcoal. I still smell the lighter fluid.
Red men white men and yellow men. Men of many colors. Watching and waiting for the next round. How is it that you still eat meat? Woulnd't you think bout the taint. Cows on revolt.
You know there's just a dog waiting out there. Hot and heavy. Full flavored and smoking. I see a tasty marshmellow. Boy is she lonely. Fireworks , every time.
B'neath the surface......looking she's found
Thorns amidst roses
red and blue
severing few........
What happened to free trade? Cattle call. I'M from Canada. I know. Peanuts. Burrow down for trouble. 'Care' is on The Way.
The Fun World....... blog kink... New way down the yellow brick road..... Toto's trailing. Keep up Toto. Don't stop and smell the roses. I am on My Mission. The Wizard is waiting. Bestest Movie ever made. A Kids nightmare. F**ken Flying Monkeys. Couldn't sleep for years.
New Heart, New Brain, COURAGE....... come on fellas.
Mr.E. i'm in rare form.... multi/ facetted, flawless and white. aka. gem... certified .
Sitting around waiting to find this perfect Guy. Man of your dreams. I will tell u. It's NO dream. A Nightmare, more like. YOU... being the Mare.
Ride um cowboy... Hold on tight. Who's got the reigns? Le Roi... i'd say. King of his castle. Poor Humpty... got dumpty.
You outa know by now if it's too good to be true , it usually 'is'... Always... on this site. Outa site (sight) outa mind. Anyone no what i'm talking bout?
New song 4 new day. Plenty xperience going round. Xxtra lotta something here. So cozzy on down and try something , new? Is there a chivairous New Man seeking one heartee damsel.
I'm outa wit. Kinda dumb. Very sweeet. Open hearted. A real prize. Booby trap. Humorous. and in Florida , my home away from home.
Is this site like an advertising bull fight... u know, when in Spain , cut them where it hurts. I am really seeking a sharp, flat out Man with an ability to ......
Still got His *alls and bloody sharp.
Sorry for my horrid attitiude, today. I wrestle with brittle bones in my closet. Osteoporosis. Spelling IS my best feature.
Come on now ,can u take a joke. America? The best country . . . in the world .
The old saying s*it or get off the pot.........you know ,i, for one, am the best procrastinator . The best and the worst of "us" cannot seem to make that dreadful decision. Who will i vote for? In life, one, decides on pretty much everything. Right?
Who are my Mom and Dad. Where i will go to school. What i get for dinner, and breakfast ,for that matter. The word NO.... and how many times ,hearing it , makes me cringe.
So no wonder, making a decision, any decision, is something that can and does affect me. Really....... what do i decide ?
My partner (picking one). Attitude of His. Children. Their attitude. President, and the economy. How little is my money worth? What do i really get after All the work is done for.......
Retirement. Taxes and the final moment.
What did i do to deserve this? i chose to be born.
Campaigns wage wars in this the "2012" year of the Dragon.... rat....etc. Whose side are You ON?? As the months heat up" literally. "The" voters are happy that their gas price has releived the nation's birthday. Oh ye Americans of little faith where is the star in your spangled pocket?
She's at the rainbow desperately stretching beyond her reach. Tippy-toed with opened hand trying to grasp hold of that final breath of Mr. E.
You Know, I was conditioned to believe in MAGIC. ..... breathing requires nothing. It's oxygen to the lungs and life's little twist. My my my . Said simply.
It's not Gold yur after.
It's kind of funny this feeling inside, can't easily hide... especially when a song been sung Bout it!! Grand illusions or illusions of grandeur. Simply put or put simply. I desire/want /must have.... magic ALL. Magical moments that change my world. Is it inside me all along and brought out when A Man (THe Man) bloody touches me in the exact spot.
Heart of the Matter........IS....... the Matter of the Heart.
Where have you been hiding.?
Which is Most Important to YOU ? Well heeled.... hung.. 'BEING' . Indeed. ( 'being'.) "BEING". So what does this kind of comment/blog conjure out of You?
Hopes and Dreams and Aspirations. DAY IN
Contact Us / Career |
Service Agreement |
Privacy Policy |
Success Stories |
Luxury Guide |
Dating Advice & Safety Tips |
Become An Affiliate
MillionaireMatch does not conduct background checks on the members of this website.


text:
|Fuck it, I'm going as Geralt of Rivia, but because I'm a bit of an amateur, I'm going as a version of his outfit from the first game rather than the second.
#9478837, By Zappanale Cosplay at Eurogamer Expo?
Zappanale 83 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 2 years ago


text:
Full-service chocolaterie. Call us to set up a unique Gelato Experience for your group or stop by for free samples of our authentic gelato.
Beautiful patio available for outdoor seating as well as beautiful indoor seating. Family-friendly live music on patio Fridays and Saturdays from 7 to 9 p.m. from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Treats include authentic Italian gelato made on-site, chocolate nut slabs (Iowa Praline Corn), European confections and cookies, licorice, local Iowa wines, Stam's coffee, Italian sodas, hot chocolate, tea and hand-painted chocolate figurines.


text:
MORE INFORMATION COMING SOON!!... More
This 1974 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe has a 350 C.I. (195 HP/ 270 Ft Lbs) V8 (Numbers Matching), TH400 Automatic Transmission (Numbers Matching), Correct Corvette... More
Just Arrived! The Nicest 454 4-Speed Numbers Matching Stingray Around! Call today for more details! Build sheet and all numbers match and the documentation... More
1974 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2 Door Sport Coupe. For Sale or Trade. Original classic with factory AC that blows ice cold. Powered by 350 V8. ... More
This 1974 L82 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible is a very attractive driver with great options. Finished in correct to the trim tag code 10L Classic... More
Corvette Coupe is powered by its original numbers matching L48 350 CID V8 engine and is backed by a 3-speed automatic transmission with 92436... More
For sale is a 1974 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible located in our Louisville showroom. To say this one owner 74 Corvette has lived a pampered... More
1974 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe - "Barn find" - well, OK, "garage find" would be more accurate - this car has had a single elderly... More
For sale is a 1974 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible located in our Indianapolis showroom. 1974 brought the introduction to a new rear bumper design... More
1974 CHEVROLET CORVETTE STINGRAY LS4 Available right now at Happy Days Dream Cars in Warrensburg, is this stunning and fast 1974 LS4 Corvette. It has... More
*1974 Corvette convertible, 350 engine, 4-speed transmission. Very nice paint and interior. Super solid, rust-free frame. All components and options work as they should... More
1974 CHEVROLET CORVETTE STINGRAY for sale Exotic Classics is pleased to present this sleek 1974 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray. Featured in Black with Black leather... More
A lot of guys claim they just want a Corvette to drive. Well here it is. With a 330 horsepower crate motor a 4-speed... More
Don't worry it's still easy and inexpensive to get into a great-looking Corvette with a rumbling V8 and a ton of options. This 1974... More
The classic American Sports Car...Corvette. This 1974 edition has the 350ci 195 hp version of Chevy's iconic V-8. Automatic transmission, air conditioning,... More