Patterico's Pontifications

1/9/2011

Down the Memory Hole: Kos Disappears His Post Targeting Giffords, Replaces With Random Innocuous Post

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:35 pm

[IMPORTANT UPDATE: See UPDATE x3 and UPDATE x4 below before making up your mind here. I initially missed a subtle change in the URL when I first published this post, but UPDATES x3 and x4 not only address that, but raise different and even more troubling issues. -- P]

Here is a screenshot before he disappeared it:

And here is one after he replaced it with a different, innocuous post:

Closeups next. First the original:

And the replacement:

And now the two URLs right next to each other:

It was never there. You hear me? It was never there.

UPDATE: And now that I have posted about this, and put something on Twitter about it, it is back.

Interesting. And yet, the screenshots don’t lie.

UPDATE x2: Commenter aphrael notes that one URL points to “storyonly” and one points to “story.” I will admit I had not noticed that — but click on both of them. They currently go to the same place.

The way I got to the “Virginia Dem” post was by clicking on the VERY SAME URL that I linked yesterday to get to the “target Giffords” post. So the evidence still indicates that there are shenanigans, unless someone can explain this further.

UPDATE x3: Here are screenshots with the exact same URL for two different posts. Here’s one:

And the other:

Closeups next. First the original:

And the replacement:

Explain that to me.

UPDATE x4: DRJ makes a very good point: that diary entry I screenshotted from 2008 is really from 2004. Here is the original 2004 URL: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2004/9/28/54168/-VA-Registration-Deadline-next-week! The deadline mentioned in that post relates to a 2004 deadline, not a 2008 one. The deadline to register in 2008 was October 6th, not October 4th.

Plus (DRJ also notes in comments), why are the timestamps identical for the two 2008 posts (9:45:23)?

Troubling, to say the least. I invite commenters to opine as to how this could be a software glitch. It’s not impossible, but I’d like to hear it explained.

84 Comments

  1. The screenshots are the only things not lying on that website.

    What scum.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 2:40 pm

  2. Oceania is not a war with Eurasia.
    Oceania is at war with East Asia.
    Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

    Comment by Dave (363ed6) — 1/9/2011 @ 2:44 pm

  3. You would think that he would have enough intelligence to write the post without this aberration (I paraphrase):

    Dateline: 6/25/10Subject: Don’t forget that VA’s registration closes next week on 10/4.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (7c91a7) — 1/9/2011 @ 2:47 pm

  4. Oops…6/25/08, not 10.
    But still, how do you get from 6/25 to 10/4 in one week?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (7c91a7) — 1/9/2011 @ 2:52 pm

  5. “You want to do something? If your local congresscritter is one of the bad apples, start organizing locally. Plug into existing networks or start your own. Begin looking for primary challengers. Do the groundwork. Don’t expect help from the local party establishment, they’ll close ranks. So tap into alternate infrastructures. Find allies in the progressive movement. If your local shitty Democrat is anti-union, approach the unions. They’d love to send this kind of message. If the Democrat is anti-choice, work with the women’s groups. If the Democrat is anti-environment … you get the idea. If you have access to professional networks and money, start organizing those.

    Of course, this takes more than just bitching about your frustrations on a blog, damning a whole party for the actions of a minority more scared of Mr. 28% than of protecting the Constitution they swore to protect. This takes hard work. But now is the time to start.

    And while people like me will focus on the task at hand this year, it won’t be long after Election Day that we’ll start looking at the 2010 map, looking for those great primary challengers.

    Who to primary? Well, I’d argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I’ve bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

    ……

    Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can’t save their jobs, they’ll pay more attention to those who can.”

    Let me get this straight, patterico. What Kos wrote is above. It talks about legal and legitimate activities to try to replace the people on the “target” list and talks about “bullseyes” on their districts. No visuals showing bullseyes or targets. No funding activities involving “shooting?, like there was in the primary against Giffords.

    And you think that is equivalent to what Palin and others did?

    Sorry. Just don’t buy it.

    Comment by Jim (8de501) — 1/9/2011 @ 2:53 pm

  6. Pravda would be so proud of the bug – eyed dwarf.

    Comment by Dmac (498ece) — 1/9/2011 @ 2:56 pm

  7. This is so obvious and typical of the left. The newspaper web sites do the same thing. Do they think no one will notice ?

    Comment by Mike K (568408) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:01 pm

  8. Mike K., they think plausible deniability is the end all and be all of their integrity.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:02 pm

  9. What integrity?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (7c91a7) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:03 pm

  10. AD, I deny using that word.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:04 pm

  11. Mentos

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:06 pm

  12. Here’s the original VirginiaDem post dated 9/28/2004.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:07 pm

  13. colonel only wish
    he were there when kos’ schoolmates
    beat sh*t outta him

    Comment by ColonelHaiku (15abe7) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:07 pm

  14. Incompetence, that’s what Kos is showing to us … along with his ass.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:37 pm

  15. Hilarious that they so easily forget screen shots.

    Comment by Vivian Louise (62ee05) — 1/9/2011 @ 3:41 pm

  16. Where are Palin’s crosshairs?
    Was Kos talking about 2nd amendment remedies?
    I don’t think so.

    Comment by Sharon (c00d8e) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:21 pm

  17. Kos has a tiny dick. Brad Friedman told me so.

    Comment by daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:30 pm

  18. Crawl back under your rock, “sharon”

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:34 pm

  19. Patterico & readers: thought you would appreciate and welcome this column from Roger Ebert’s former At The Movies cohost, Richard Roeper.

    Some of the good parts:

    “Sarah Palin isn’t responsible for the shootings any more than J.D. Salinger was accountable for the murder of John Lennon, “Taxi Driver” was the cause of the attempted assassination on Ronald Reagan or video games were the motivating factor behind the Columbine shootings [...] It’s the individuals who pulled the trigger, and not any cultural influences, who were responsible for these violent acts. Even if Loughner had a shrine to Palin, complete with a poster of Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” map, he’s the one with blood on his hands.”

    Comment by qdpsteve (f1c59f) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:35 pm

  20. Ah, thanks for this — it explains some confusion I had. When I first followed I link I got the replacement page and thought I was misunderstanding; then later I happened across the link and the page had the indicated content, and I figured my brain must be fuzzed.

    Comment by Maurilius (55ddaf) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:39 pm

  21. BTW… for all you gun fetishists, the high-capacity magazine of the semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday was banned under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban which expired in 2004.

    Comment by Sharon (da3cc3) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:45 pm

  22. Fetishist is one of William Yelverton’s favorite words, especially when he is being a cross dressing gender bender.

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:47 pm

  23. What did Michelle Obama say once ‘we must change our way of doing things, our history’ Zampolit
    Moulitsas shows us the way.

    Comment by narciso (6075d0) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:49 pm

  24. So?
    Without a supply of magazines, he could have just pulled a “Josey Wales” by carrying more than one pistol.
    You have seen “Josey Wales” haven’t you?
    It is not the weapon tool that kills, but the killer who applies the weapon tool to the situation at hand.
    (shorthand)…
    Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
    You know, like the class of kids in Japan that were killed by a madman armed with a knife (or was it a sword?).

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (7c91a7) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:51 pm

  25. He’s just reading the latest idiocy from Justin Elliot, can’t be helped

    Comment by narciso (6075d0) — 1/9/2011 @ 4:56 pm

  26. Kos may not be at fault here. I noticed something similar yesterday, the post was gone, and then it was back after I reloaded.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:09 pm

  27. In fact, I was going to make a similar post about Kos’ memory-holing, but clicked again a final time and lo, the post was up again. Some issues with the Internets may be at work.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:12 pm

  28. Sharon, no the magazine was not banned under the falsely named Clinton era and unconstitutional Assault Weapons ban. Sales of new magazines of capacity greater than 10 was prohibited during that period but sales of magazines manufactured before the date were not.

    Why do you post falsehoods?

    Easy answer really, because you get your talking points from morons and liars.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:13 pm

  29. dozen other people on Saturday was banned under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban which expired in 2004.

    “Unfortunately for Elliott and the dolts he has for editors at Salon, his claims are almost entirely untrue.

    The Glock 19 was completely legal and freely available during the entirety of the laughably ineffective law. It was never illegal to purchase, manufacture or own at any point, and Glock actually introduced 11 new models to the US market during the time Elliot claimed they were banned.

    Likewise, the 31-round magazines used in the shooting have never been banned from civilian ownership, or commercial and retail sale. Only the manufacture of new magazines was banned during the time the law was in effect. Sale, ownership, possession and use was always perfectly legal as a federal matter.

    Elliott’s post isn’t just wrong, it’s embarrassingly wrong.”

    link

    Comment by newrouter (b55202) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:13 pm

  30. If the Left actually knew what they were talking about re firearms, it would be one of those rare occurrences in history.
    The irony is that the writers of those gun-banning bills are just as fact-challenged about firearms as their acolytes writing here.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (7c91a7) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:16 pm

  31. Bradley,

    What would make a 2004 post suddenly appear with a new URL and a 2008 date?

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:21 pm

  32. They are the Peter Venkman of political theory or history, they just wing it, hope no one notices

    Comment by narciso (6075d0) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:25 pm

  33. Conspiracy theorists

    Comment by Chris Hooten (2b9678) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:27 pm

  34. I admit that I personally know zip about guns. But that someone like “Sharon”, clearly anti-gun, posting here on this site for “gun fetishists” would try to instruct those “gun fetishists” on firearms and the law is really quite amusing.

    Comment by elissa (2f1e5c) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:27 pm

  35. So, “Sharon” … that’s all you got? Can’t you go find another fraudulent talking point ?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:29 pm

  36. The anti-gun people are laughably ignorant about guns. It is common, for example, to see them talk about automatic weapons. Those have been banned since 1933. Diane Feinstein held up an “assault weapon” that was nothing of the sort. They just don’t know what they are talking about and the laws they write reflect this ignorance.

    Comment by Mike K (568408) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:41 pm

  37. DRJ,
    What would make a 2004 post suddenly appear with a new URL and a 2008 date?

    I have no idea whatsoever why that would happen. But since the post reappeared after refreshing the link, I don’t think it’s something deliberate. Why would Kos do that?

    Unlike our excitable friends to the left, I’d prefer to be cautious in imputing ignoble motives. It’s enough to note that the link is flaky, and you need to reload to see it.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 1/9/2011 @ 5:52 pm

  38. It seems pretty likely that Kos pulled the post, then quickly discovered that lots and lots of conservative blogs had screen shots. Knowing that there was no way to make this go away, he wisely realized that he looked even worse selectively editing the past and put the post back up.

    Comment by qdpsteve — 1/9/2011 @ 4:35 pm

    Wow, for as much as I loathe Roger Ebert, I am starting to really like Richard Roeper.

    Comment by JVW (4463d3) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:02 pm

  39. Glenn reynolds has a column up on the blood libel issue.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    They hope to replicate the aftermath of ok city. but the problem is that the internet barely existed, if it existed at all, back then.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:16 pm

  40. btw, the criminal indictment of the jerk, here:

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/PR_01092011_Loughner.pdf

    all federal indictments. i predict that the guy will be dead, so long as the actual execution is not scheduled while a dem is in charge.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (1a6294) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:20 pm

  41. Douchebag … the urls are different. This whole post is bogus.

    Comment by Sharon (9289f5) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:20 pm

  42. Ah, with the name calling Sharon tells us who he … err, “she” … is.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:21 pm

  43. Ah, delete my last please.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:22 pm

  44. Patterico, even now you’ll note that http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568 and http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568 point to different pages.

    This may be a general problem with the way stories from 2008 are handled. Unfortunately, all of the other pages from 2008 I’ve found so far have trailing text at the end of the URL, rather than just numbers, so it’s hard for me to say.

    [ObNote: I was distantly involved in the group of people who developed scoop, the technology originally used to run the kos website].

    Comment by aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:26 pm

  45. aphrael,

    The VirginiaDem post is from 2004, which to me undercuts your theory that this is a 2008 problem.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:28 pm

  46. Finally someone got a clue this post was bogus. Thanks aphrael.

    Comment by TGF (c00d8e) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:35 pm

  47. Care to support the assertion that this is bogus, TGF?

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:40 pm

  48. UPDATE x2: Commenter aphrael notes that one URL points to “storyonly” and one points to “story.” I will admit I had not noticed that — but click on both of them. They currently go to the same place.

    The way I got to the “Virginia Dem” post was by clicking on the VERY SAME URL that I linked yesterday to get to the “target Giffords” post. So the evidence still indicates that there are shenanigans, unless someone can explain this further.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:41 pm

  49. I will have to take new screenshots to make the parallelism clear.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:42 pm

  50. The original VirginiaDem post (9/28/2004) has the “storyonly” text. I posted the link above but here it is again.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:44 pm

  51. Patterico, at 47: right now if I click on storyonly, it goes to the targeting post, while the story link goes to the virginia dem post.

    Comment by aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:45 pm

  52. I just took new screenshots, aphrael. I will have to revamp the post to take account of the point you made but it is still valid.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:48 pm

  53. Hello? Is anyone listening?

    The VirginiaDem post is from 2004, not 2008. The deadline to register in 2008 was October 6th, not October 4th.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:49 pm

  54. In other words, something is fishy with the Daily Kos VirginiaDem post that shows a 2008 date.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:49 pm

  55. DRJ: right. And the thing that’s odd is that the URL is built from dates, so 2008/xx/yy is a date portion.

    I’d say software bug if it weren’t for the 2008 timestamp in the content of the post.

    Comment by aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/9/2011 @ 6:52 pm

  56. Good point, DRJ. Let me process that.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:01 pm

  57. In the meantime, let me highlight my latest update:

    UPDATE x3: Here are screenshots with the exact same URL for two different posts. Here’s one:

    And the other:

    Closeups next. First the original:

    And the replacement:

    Explain that to me.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:01 pm

  58. Plus, why are the timestamps identical for both 2008 posts?

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:02 pm

  59. UPDATE x4: DRJ makes a very good point: that diary entry I screenshotted from 2008 is really from 2004. Here is the original 2004 URL: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2004/9/28/54168/-VA-Registration-Deadline-next-week! The deadline mentioned in that post relates to a 2004 deadline, not a 2008 one. The deadline to register in 2008 was October 6th, not October 4th.

    Plus (DRJ also notes in comments), why are the timestamps identical for the two 2008 posts (9:45:23)?

    Troubling, to say the least. I invite commenters to opine as to how this could be a software glitch. It’s not impossible, but I’d like to hear it explained.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:09 pm

  60. aphrael? I’m looking to you for an explanation here.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:09 pm

  61. If there were shenanigans, what would the motive be? The only one I can think of is to trick people into saying the post was memory-holed, only to have it reappear. That seems weak to me. Could there be any other reasons?

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:12 pm

  62. Not sure, Bradley. The only thing I know is that a controversial post has two different posts appearing at the same URL.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:13 pm

  63. Patterico: yeah, I don’t have an explanation. It seems suspicious to me. As I said in comment #54, I also find it odd that the 2004 post has a 2008 timestamp.

    That said, IIRC – it’s been years since I’ve looked at scoop code – the timestamp is not part of the body but is a different field in the table.

    Comment by aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:22 pm

  64. I’m ignorant of the software used on that website so I’ll have to refrain from expressing a professional opinion.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:24 pm

  65. It looks to me like the Daily Kos posts have dates in the URLs and each post is also numbered. Thus, the most recent Daily Kos post (as of the time of this comment) has today’s date and “934104″. However, the post immediately before that has today’s date and is numbered “934856″. My guess is the numbers are assigned when a post is first created or drafted, not when it is posted.

    The two posts highlighted by Patterico also have dates and are numbered, and the numbers are not as advanced as the current numbers — which suggests to me that the numbers are assigned sequentially and increase each year. However, the 2008 post and the 2004 post have similar numbers. The 2004 post has “54168″ in the URL and the 2008 post had “541568″ in the URL. Maybe that similarity is to blame for the mixup, or maybe someone used that similarity to replace a controversial post with one that had a similar URL.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:25 pm

  66. dates in the URLs and each post is also numbere

    correct.

    My guess is the numbers are assigned when a post is first created or drafted, not when it is posted.

    also correct.

    numbers are assigned sequentially

    kinda-sorta. the numbering scheme would share sequential numbers with diaries and with certain pages that aren’t visible to users but are visible to admins. so they’re sequential with gaps.

    Comment by aphrael (fe2ce4) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:28 pm

  67. But aphrael:

    You now agree I have screenshots for two different posts at the SAME URL, correct?

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:36 pm

  68. Not to mention that I got to the different URL screenshotted at the top by clicking on a link for the other.

    Still awaiting an innocent explanation …

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:38 pm

  69. Aaaaand waiting . . .

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 7:52 pm

  70. Aaaaaaaaaand waiting . . .

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 8:33 pm

  71. OMG this totally couldn’t be a technical glitch! No way! This is a total liberal conspiracy!

    Comment by Chris Hooten (2b9678) — 1/9/2011 @ 8:57 pm

  72. It doesn’t require a conspiracy, Hootie. One guy (Kos) does not a conspiracy make.

    I have invited alternate explanations and heard none. The people who claimed I was talking about two different URLs have also disappeared now that I have proved otherwise.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:04 pm

  73. Patterico – crissyhooten has a habit of trying to marginalize any view that he does not agree with as being fringe, crazy, irrational, etc …

    Comment by JD (d4bbf1) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:08 pm

  74. OMG, Hooten doesn’t make a point. Should we swoon now or later?

    Comment by Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:09 pm

  75. Patterico, yes, I agree you now have two different screenshots at the same URL.

    [I've not disappeared; I was engaged in family duties. This happens from time to time. :) ]

    As I said before: I don’t have an explanation; it seems suspicious to me.

    Comment by aphrael (9802d6) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:13 pm

  76. So how long was it disappeared for?

    Comment by Chris Hooten (2b9678) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:21 pm

  77. Does this glitch happen with any other DK posts? If so, that points to some strange bug, not any attempt to deceive. But if only this one post is so affected, then it raises eyebrows.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:34 pm

  78. Chris Hooten,
    For me, it disappeared for a short time.

    Yesterday I went to the link and found another post, then found the original one in Google Cache. I was preparing to write a scathing post about DK’s disappearing bullseyes when I went back to the link to retest, and it showed up.

    I’ve seen the same glitch today, only I know now to refresh the link until the post shows up. Bizarre.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 1/9/2011 @ 9:38 pm

  79. aphrael, I pretty confident that Patterico’s “disappeared” comment was not directed at you.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 1/10/2011 @ 5:15 am

  80. Here is a link for you to match up to with additional info:

    http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congresswoman-voted-against-nancy-pelosi-and-is-now-dead-to-me-eerie-daily-kos-hit-piece-on-gabrielle-giffords-just-two-days-before-assassination-attempt-on-her/

    Comment by Tara (5f7c55) — 1/10/2011 @ 1:05 pm

  81. Yes, yes, sure. But even more astonishingly, Land’s End buys banner advertising on the Daily KOS? Really?

    Comment by skh.pcola (f4773e) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:05 pm

  82. Abracadabra! The magical amazing disappearing and then reappearing conspiracy theory!

    Comment by Chris Hooten (2b9678) — 1/10/2011 @ 6:09 pm

  83. Thanks for this very useful info you have provided us. I will bookmark this for future reference and refer it to my friends.
    skyscraper

    Comment by skyscraper (cf05a1) — 5/31/2011 @ 6:12 am

  84. What is with all these spammers? And what can be done about them?

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/31/2011 @ 6:22 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4910 secs.