Patterico's Pontifications


Poll: Are the Kozinski Images Worse or Better Than You Imagined from Their Description?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Kozinski — Patterico @ 12:28 pm

Here’s a question for everyone who has looked at the images posted on my site from Judge Kozinski’s web site.

Are the images more offensive or less offensive than you thought they would be from the text description?

I could be wrong, but I think that on the whole, most people will say that the actual images are slightly less offensive than one would expect from a text description.

Context is key. For example, if the aroused donkey video I linked last night is truly the video described in the article, the man is not “cavorting” with the donkey. He is trying to keep the donkey away. The video attempts to be humorous, not prurient. The newspaper should have made that clear.

However. I admit to being fairly shocked when I saw some of these images for the first time late last night. The picture of the young man fellating himself was especially jarring to me, for whatever reason.

What do you think? My question goes to all the posted images.

For clarity, please begin your comment by clearly stating whether the images were more offensive, less offensive, or no different from what you been led to believe from a text description.


  1. Way less.

    Comment by Levi (76ef55) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:40 pm

  2. I found them less offensive than I had expected them to be from the text description.

    Comment by aphrael (db0b5a) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:42 pm

  3. Less.

    Comment by Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:42 pm

  4. Less offensive, more amusing.

    Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:54 pm

  5. More idiotic and childish than offensive – but still less offensive.

    Comment by Dmac (8b946c) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:56 pm

  6. Oh, great. Medved is on the radio giving the text descriptions.

    Comment by jen (95922e) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:11 pm

  7. Less offensive than a typical Levi rant. Moo moo.

    Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:14 pm

  8. Less offensive.
    I’d classify this stuff as amusing but off-color and/or tasteless; inappropriate for work, but, given that a fair bit of that material has been making the rounds on the Net for years, hardly worthy of outrage.
    Now, if Kozinski were a prominent anti-porn crusader, it’d be a somewhat different matter. Since he isn’t… eh. He had a collection of stuff that he shared with friends and family, and that (perhaps contrary to his intentions) got into public view. Big deal. If he violated any anti-smut laws with this material, I’d have to say the problem is with the laws.
    The copyright issue may be another matter, but I don’t have enough (a) detail, nor (b) attention span, to worry about that just now.

    Comment by Eric Wilner (3936fd) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:43 pm

  9. Less that purported, according to what very little I viewed. Nevertheless, not something I care or choose to see.

    Comment by EHeavenlyGads (f29174) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:53 pm

  10. Less offensive. Several of them were things that were sent to me as jokes when i was in college. Hell, my mom sent me the sky diver one not too long ago.

    She’d have been offended by the women painted as cows though. Or she’d have acted like it.

    Comment by Joe (066362) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:57 pm

  11. More offensive than what I expect a federal judge would post on a public (or family) website.

    Comment by DRJ (73b499) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:58 pm

  12. DRJ !!!!!!::!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I miss you.

    Comment by JD (5f0e11) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:02 pm

  13. Patterico – I don’t think that being jealous is the same as taking offense.

    Comment by contortion (9c2280) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:03 pm

  14. Less

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:08 pm

  15. Hey, they finally managed to get a pic of the infamous “young man from Nantucket”?…

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:21 pm

  16. Patterico – I don’t think that being jealous is the same as taking offense.
    Comment by contortion — 6/12/2008 @ 2:03 pm


    Comment by jen (95922e) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:22 pm

  17. Less. Looks like typical risqué internet humor.

    Comment by amanda (6c0616) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:32 pm

  18. less- I appreciate the naked women but could do without the cow paint.

    more tasty site that leaves a bit to the imagination and lady is writing a fictional baseball sex secrets book:

    Give me Catherine Zeta-Jones or Nigella Lawson in the kitchen though

    Comment by madmax333 (06013e) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:49 pm

  19. Less. I only viewed a few, though. The cow pictures made me realize Moses’ brother Aaron probably had a point.

    Comment by fat tony (389e83) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:55 pm

  20. Less offensive than I initially thought. I began to sense after the first of the “woman painted as cow” pics appeared last night that the LAT writers could have used words to maximize sales. They did, so what is new?

    Comment by procab (275fa0) — 6/12/2008 @ 3:03 pm

  21. here’s something I would define as offensive, even obscene:

    Yesterday Bush awarded Donna Shalala a Presidential Medal of Freedom, calling her, “one of our nations most distinguished educators and public officials.” Who makes these decisions? She started out in education as Chancellor at U. of Wisc. trying to stamp out freedon of speech and was a mediocre Clinton cabinet flunky and apologist.

    Comment by madmax333 (06013e) — 6/12/2008 @ 3:18 pm

  22. Does it really matter if they are more or less offensive, if one finds them offensive? Am I supposed to be relieved that they are “less” offensive than “more?” Offensive is offensive.

    I guess it is the eye of the beholder thing. Personally, men who need porn to get off offend me more than the porn they collect.

    Comment by Sara (3337ed) — 6/12/2008 @ 3:59 pm

  23. Far less offensive (although I have not looked at all of them.) Tasteless, boring, foolish, juvenile, … lots of adjectives come to mind before either offensive or obscene. Typical twelve year old male humor, sadly, at least the ones I saw.

    Comment by htom (412a17) — 6/12/2008 @ 4:00 pm

  24. The picture of the young man fellating himself was especially jarring to me, for whatever reason.

    I’m sorry–I was young, I needed the money…

    Comment by See-Dubya (d75aff) — 6/12/2008 @ 4:05 pm

  25. It was a one-time thing, I SWEAR!!!

    Comment by Viktor (6c107f) — 6/12/2008 @ 5:14 pm

  26. About what I expected.

    Comment by Viktor (6c107f) — 6/12/2008 @ 5:15 pm

  27. Disgusting. Utterly offensive. More so when it is linked to an honourable judge.

    Comment by love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/12/2008 @ 5:24 pm

  28. I was deeply offended that there was nothing new there to send on to my friends.

    Comment by Nels Nelson (a474bc) — 6/12/2008 @ 5:37 pm

  29. the donkey is harmless. the perverted priests are in questionable taste. the painted cows will generate a legitimate uproar from women. the kid blowing himself, if he’s under 18, could send judge kozinski to prison.

    Comment by assistant devil's advocate (9f4e65) — 6/12/2008 @ 6:14 pm

  30. Less offensive.

    I’m more concerned that a sitting Judge would be so stupid as to put copyrighted music in a position to be illegally distributed. What. An. Idiot.

    Comment by h2u (4a7c7f) — 6/12/2008 @ 6:21 pm

  31. More offensive. They are ugly, mean and weird. No eroticism, just deviance. What kind of mentality likes such things enough to preserve them? Even the girls painted as cows had to be mutilated with photoshopped grotesque genitalia? There’s one sick puppy there.

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/12/2008 @ 6:54 pm

  32. OTOH, nk, we’ve finally seen a purple cow.

    Comment by fat tony (601b8d) — 6/12/2008 @ 6:59 pm

  33. way less offensive than i thought. Some of them were funny.

    The priest/boy fellatio pics are the most troubling to me.

    Comment by slackmac (09de26) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:14 pm

  34. Love your puns on all these threads, Tony. I would tell you to “keep it up” but I would worry if you could with these images.

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:15 pm

  35. ada is right: forget everything else – the self-fellating boy is child pornography.

    Comment by great unknown (579a05) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:15 pm

  36. I refused to watch that. I repeat, “sick puppy”.

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:17 pm

  37. Less offensive.

    Most of that stuff I’ve received in e-mail over the last several years. From lawyers. The self felatio was shocking, but looks to be a photoshop.

    Most shocking to me is the newspaper’s utter lack of initiative to inquire about the bias and agenda of their informer. I think the lawyer that started this is a piece of crap — because if he had a concern about the judge’s fidelity to the rules, there is an established process. He chose not to use that process, and set out to destroy the judge. The newspaper’s description of the images and content borders on misrepresentation.

    Comment by Gonzo (aec2cd) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:42 pm

  38. Less. Doesn’t even register on the Piss Christ O’Meter

    Comment by Ed (a9dfde) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:58 pm

  39. As I’ve said before, the only thing disturbing to me is the eagerness of some people to send a man who has shown a long-term commitment to public service upriver just because it turns out he thinks that bodily functions and sexual humor are amusing. “He’s not as sexually repressed as we are? Stone him!”

    Oh well, I guess some people are still just a few steps off the Mayflower. They’d still be burning single women as witches if we let them . . . it’s really scary.

    Comment by Phil (0ef625) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:24 pm

  40. Nobody wants to stone him, Phil. Just to set a standard for somebody who has almost absolute power over our lives, liberties and property. A Chief Judge of a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. With the mentality of an extremely badly raised sixteen-year old. Who thinks this crap is worth storing on his website.

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:38 pm

  41. I’d just like to note how totally whack it is that comments are closed on the posting about the Supreme Court decision today. Why? What is the reason? How is that on a politics blog, we’re meant to talk about this sort of stupid crap, and not Supreme Court decisions involving basic human rights?

    Comment by Levi (76ef55) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:58 pm

  42. About as offensive as expected. The only thing that bothers me is that an allegedly highly intelligent judge is such a giant r-tard.

    Comment by jpe (bd88bc) — 6/12/2008 @ 9:36 pm

  43. Levi: Justin has regularly closed his posts to comments for a long time now. There’s nothing unusual about it, and it’s not related to the specifics of this decision.

    Comment by aphrael (db0b5a) — 6/12/2008 @ 11:34 pm

  44. Levi, Justin has regularly closed his posts to comments for some time now. It’s not unusual, and it’s not related to the specifics of this court decision.

    Comment by aphrael (db0b5a) — 6/12/2008 @ 11:35 pm

  45. Far, far less offensive. In a world where “goatse” is a common reference, I can’t imagine anyone would find them shocking.

    Comment by SEK (f5b6c2) — 6/13/2008 @ 2:56 am

  46. Less. And I also fail to see how this reflects on Kozinski’s ability to do his job in any way, shape or form.


    Just to set a standard for somebody who has almost absolute power over our lives, liberties and property.

    And what standard might that be?

    With the mentality of an extremely badly raised sixteen-year old. Who thinks this crap is worth storing on his website.

    Naughty/sexual humor goes well beyond the teenaged and the poorly raised. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, true. But this is little more than dirty jokes illustrated, and discussion of such things, while it has no place in polite company is utterly commonplace.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 5:42 am

  47. the painted cows will generate a legitimate uproar from women.

    I just don’t get this. It’s makeup; it’s no more offensive than if they had been painted to resemble statues or were wearing cat suits. If the pictures had the name of a world-famous photographer attached to them (or were in black-and-white), they’d be considered “art”.

    Even the girls painted as cows had to be mutilated with photoshopped grotesque genitalia?

    Didn’t notice that. Saw that they were, um, groomed in a style that’s popular now, but didn’t see anything that said “Photoshopped”.

    Maybe I just didn’t look close enough…

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 6/13/2008 @ 5:46 am

  48. Again, Levi’s juvenile rants are more offensive than the pictures.

    Comment by JD (75f5c3) — 6/13/2008 @ 5:50 am

  49. I hope Patterico will favor us with an “i.p.” address verification in this thread, just in case many of the votes one way or another happen to be the grudge holding attorney who shopped this story and has already posted in the comments. If he sock puppets these threads he should be exposed as doing so.

    Comment by Gonzo (aec2cd) — 6/13/2008 @ 6:00 am

  50. Totally milquetoast stuff. Just as Justin said, I’ve seen most of them before in email forwards from my friends with a low-brow sense of humor.

    Comment by CTD (7054d2) — 6/13/2008 @ 6:34 am

  51. And what standard might that be?

    Alright, Pablo, this time you’re not being sarcastic. I can peg my fellow reprobates with snowballs now, right?

    Comment by SEK (f5b6c2) — 6/13/2008 @ 6:41 am

  52. If he sock puppets these threads he should be exposed as doing so.

    Patterico has a firm stance against that and I don’t think he’d allow it to go unacknowledged if it were happening here.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 6:53 am

  53. As long as you’re all reprobates, Scott, you can even put rocks in ‘em. Who’s going to complain?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 6:54 am

  54. Way more. If I was in a jury pool, he’d be guilty of possession of child pornography.

    The child fellating himself is clearly not of age. There is also a photo depicting a child sucking the penis of a catholic priest.

    That the judge finds all this humourous is chilling.

    This judge should be arrested and we should have trial to determine, based not on fact, but on opinion, whether he was in possession of “obscene” material.

    Whether Kozinski broke the law can ONLY be determined AFTER a trial (according to the way the Supreme Court and Kozinski’s other associates in the judiciary have ruled.)

    Comment by skeptic (d084ad) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:17 am

  55. And what standard might that be?

    Of dignity and gravity? Of respect for the most wonderful Creation, the human body? Of normalcy?

    I am not priggish about nudity or sex. But this stuff is worse than guys who get aroused by a pair of high heels and not the girl wearing them.

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:21 am

  56. Way less.

    Comment by Ira (5a8831) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:24 am

  57. Of dignity and gravity?

    On the bench, yes. But can he sit in his underwear watching football, drinking beer, farting and belching on a Sunday afternoon, and perhaps swearing at the TV? Can we expect him not to? Can we impose that standard?

    Of respect for the most wonderful Creation, the human body?

    When we’ve had the highest court in the land bless abortion, I’m not sure where you’re going with this. None of what I’ve seen would be illegal, which is the standard we can and should hold them to.

    Of normalcy?

    If the majority of comments on this site are any indication, there isn’t an abnormality problem here. Is the standard you’re seeking one that says a judge must be beyond reproach in every facet of his life? Granted, this was not at all smart on his part, but I don’t see it as being actionable.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:48 am

  58. So whats your point exactly Pablo? You think this excusable behaviour from a Judge?

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:54 am

  59. Way less, I join the others that have said that they have received the same or similar as email “jokes”. I’ll caveat that with “not my cup of tea”, and would promptly delete same. Having read the descriptions prior to actually viewing I expected “pr0n” and, sadly no, was disappointed. Still, in the end, the esteemed judge will probably have to recuse himself from future pronagraphy related cases.

    Comment by Thomas (b7fe33) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:54 am

  60. So whats your point exactly Pablo? You think this excusable behaviour from a Judge?

    On his own time, using private property? Yeah, no problem.

    He starts posting it in the courthouse, then there’s a problem.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:58 am

  61. #60
    Why would he post it? Is there any particular point you think he wants to make or was he just trying to see what the public would say? What do you think? Because nobody mistakenly posts things on the web without knowing what he/she is doing. I think he did it deliberately. what I dont understand is why. Was he testing the public response? Was he experimenting?

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:09 am

  62. You think this excusable behaviour from a Judge?

    Excuse from what? From whom? To whom? On what grounds does it require excusing?

    The mp3 sharing issue is far more problematic, if it can be substantiated.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:10 am

  63. Why would he post it?

    Good question. I think it was a stupid thing to do. But what difference does it make?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:11 am

  64. As I understand it, it was NOT a directory he shared with the world. It was a place he could drop files and send someone a link to.

    I don’t think he intended the public to see them at all. It was for sharing with acquaintances. That it wasn’t adequately protected doesn’t strike me as a crime, or a moral failing.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (6c262f) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:14 am

  65. I suppose I’m looking for evidence to contradict Nietszche’s assertion that our rulers sit on thrones resting on mud and what sits on them is itself mud, and not finding it.

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:28 am

  66. Well, if anyone would know mud, it would be Nietszche!

    Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:30 am

  67. #64
    Then this is a non issue. None of our business. Unintentional exposure of private collections to the public is a no case. Right?

    Comment by love2008 (1b037c) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:33 am

  68. Unintentional exposure of private collections to the public is a no case. Right?

    Unless the content is illegal to possess, yes, that’s right.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:38 am

  69. Much less.

    This is almost all crap from the internet that many of us get as emails and a few stupid pics making fun of the Catholic Church and its sick habit of ignoring rampant sexual abuse of children by priests.

    Based on the stories this guy had a website full of violent, sick, bestial porn. No wonder newspapers are going out of business, idiots.

    Comment by Diplomatbob (bb6fbd) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:47 am

  70. Illegal to possess? In this case, what content would you classify as “illegal to possess”?

    Comment by love2008 (0c8c2c) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:47 am

  71. Not into porn myself, so found it instructive to see what a 9th Circuit Judge found interesting, titillating, etc. The guy is puerile. Hard to think of him as a “mature” adult in any way. TH

    Comment by Tiger Huetrifin (b1cbed) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:55 am

  72. I was amused at how old the stuff was — I checked my mail archive and it looks like someone sent the donkey to me in 1999! On the whole wayyyy less offensive than I expected — the same juvenile stuff every swinging dick biglaw partner has his secretary forward on to his golfing buddies.

    Regardless, though, what a bone-headed move. He should spend more time googling himself!

    Comment by bode (2e8328) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:48 am

  73. Absolutely less. I expected porn; I got the sort of silly junk people send me all the time. In fact, I think I’ve been sent at least half of these already and I laughed at some of the ones I hadn’t seen.

    The fact that *anyone in the world cares about this* for even one second shows how braindead stupid people are.

    This is completely “excusable behavior” for a judge. The main question: does he do his job well? I really don’t care if he sends his friends pictures of women painted as cows, like not at all, one little bit do I care, if he does his job well.

    And note: the guy didn’t actually leave links to these lying around. Someone started to experiment with URLs to find them. You couldn’t have found these items by Googling for them.

    “The guy is puerile. Hard to think of him as a “mature” adult in any way.”

    Get over yourself, you aren’t so great.

    I think about 80% of my friends would laugh at 80% of those pictures, and my friends include some pretty brilliant and successful adults at the top of their fields in multiple fields of endeavor.

    Frankly, the more adult I think someone is, the more likely they are to laugh at stupid, childish things.

    Comment by Tom Human (28ad4f) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:07 am

  74. In this case, what content would you classify as “illegal to possess”?

    That which is against the law to possess, such as child porn. It seems simple enough.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:08 am

  75. Way less offensive.

    Comment by JSL (b34c29) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:38 am

  76. Far, far less. The LA Times went WAY overboard in their descriptions. It’s quite disturbing that they would tar and feather judge K as if he’s trading beastiality porn when he’s really just putting some silly viral videos onto his server.

    Comment by LA Times sucks (cc882a) — 6/13/2008 @ 11:07 am

  77. Less. This is the sort of dumb scurrilous humor that gets emailed round and round the web by a lot of people every day. It is not intended to “turn you on”, it’s meant to make you snicker (if you have a somewhat immature sense of humor) – it is therefore not porn! Folks, you KNOW for a fact this Sanai man has a personal vendetta against Kozinski and wants to bring him down. He’s posted comments on blogs boasting that a majority percentage of people are “siding” with him, which means he’s winning the vendetta.

    This guy is raising a lynch mob – remember those old Frankenstein films with the peasants with their pitchforks and torches. Is that what you want to be a part of? Please try to think straight and don’t let this guy manipulate you further.

    Comment by TJ (74a875) — 6/13/2008 @ 11:21 am

  78. NSFW. Anyone here not seen that?

    Two words in this common expression stand out. First, there is “safe” — why “safe”? Why not “appropriate”? Why not “intended”?

    If you asked me my honest opinion, I’d say it was because workplaces have become PC war zones where any sign of humanity or any offensive behavior (no matter how slight or whether intended as such) has become a criminal charge — one that has penalties more severe than DUI, in many cases. You can’t say, “he’s likely the only black guy in the cafeteria” or “a receptionist should be dressed in a less provocative manner” without finding yourself hounded by HR, and possibly terminated.

    That’s not to say that the abuses that instigated this sort of regime do not continue to exist, or that they weren’t serious in their day, but the machinery of personal destruction that was created to extirpate this behavior has long since gone searching harder and harder to find grist for its mill.

    The other word that stands out in that phrase is “work”. It’s assumed that people go home and do things separate from work, where they are not going to be harassed by a hair-trigger thoughtcrime bureaucracy. There, in one’s own castle, one can watch NSFW videos, download NSFW pictures, tell NSFW jokes, send NSFW emails….

    I’d imagine that judge Kozinski is feeling pretty violated about now. “Not Safe For Work” has become “Never safe, day or night, at home or with friends, so long as anyone with an axe to grind can possibly document something and characterize it as offensive.”

    And I, for one, hope that he uses this experience to flavor his decisions for a good, long career as a judge. He’s had a stellar record to date, and if this fiasco makes him a stickler for privacy concerns, so much the better.

    Comment by cthulhu (4e7c76) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:25 pm

  79. This discussion is now moot.

    Nyah, nyah, I win.

    Sorry for the gloating. (Actually, no, not really. Kozinski would be on my automatic SOJ list.)

    Comment by nk (4bb2be) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:39 pm

  80. cthulhu….Good Post!

    Comment by Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:40 pm

  81. child Porn, disgusting, offensive, sick, perverted. You people are all nuts and off your rocking chair. Maybe at most disgusting, offensive, sick, and perverted to some, but not child porn.

    I would really be awfully afraid if some of you wackos were jurors deciding what is offensive or not and had to send someone to jail. Oh wait…they did do that to Max Hardcore, hahaha.

    Comment by Bull S (89aa70) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:34 pm

  82. ” the kid blowing himself, if he’s under 18, could send judge kozinski to prison.”

    I expect the kid is probably just a skinny, not-very-hairy guy over 18. At that camera angle, it’s pretty much impossible to tell for sure. For that matter, the member in question could be a tube of toothpaste or other prop, rather than part of his anatomy.

    However, the Judge could possibly get in trouble for hosting the image without the required paperwork on file to prove the model’s age. Same with the cow girls.

    Comment by Jon H (83e072) — 6/14/2008 @ 9:26 pm

  83. Less.

    The fact that most of these have been widely distributed by email for years (and even the auto-fellatio one is a lame ‘priceless’ gag) to the extent that they’re old hat really diminishes the scandal for me.

    If this had happened in a few years, the site might have included a “Ceiling Cat Is Watching You Masturbate” lolcat picture. I wonder how the Time would have described *that*.

    Comment by Jon H (83e072) — 6/14/2008 @ 9:31 pm

  84. Bull S wrote: “child Porn, disgusting, offensive, sick, perverted. ”

    Are you aroused by felt?

    How odd.

    Comment by Jon H (83e072) — 6/14/2008 @ 9:32 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3549 secs.