Back to Messageboard | Home | Site Map  
 

Conversation with MediaLenser David Wearing  
Posted by Peter on October 28 2007, 13:30 » Uploaded 28/10/07 13:42  

After the thread on Professor Marc Herold being unimpressed with Media Lens, I followed up a point with one of the "Lens" board contributors, David Wearing. He seems to be one of the more reasonable of the Media Lens folk.

All the same, I thought some of the things David writes on this subject are a bit confused or off the mark (for example, he thinks that Marc Herold said things about the Lancet study, but Herold said absolutely nothing about that study in the article quoted or in his response to Media Lens).

David also says: "Its either a vast underestimate or its the comprehensive tally that the media have been effectively presenting it as". But this is merely promoting a false dichotomy which is at the root of the misrepresentation evident in the Media Lens piece.

Neither Herold nor IBC dispute that their counts are not "comprehensive tallies". The question has always been by how much they fall short of the actual figure. Media Lens claim that IBC have "never accepted" that their count is a "vast underestimate", yet if they are using the term "vast" in the sense that Herold uses it (and they clearly are), then they are wrong, as IBC have previously said their count may be 50% or even as low as 25% of the actual figure.

Anway, I pointed David to the original thread, and this is our dialogue:

 

David Wearing said...

Thanks, Peter. And thanks for your kind comments.

I've had a glance at this and I don't think there's much there to be honest.

Firstly, what the David's say about Herold in the piece in question is an entirely faithful and accurate representation of what it says in the Toronto Star article that they cite, from what I can see. So there's no question of dishonesty or "lazy/sloppy research".

Which precise project it was of Herold's that inspired IBC seems to me to be of fairly little interest. If the "Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S. Bombing" uses broadly the same methodology as "The Afghan Victim Memorial Project" then the error's an irrelevance. And anyway, the error is the Toronto Star's, not ML's, so Herold should complain to them.

As to the point which ML were making about the methodology underestimating the true number, Herold does not contradict this and the point stands. NB: ZNet's is a note of clarification, not correction.

Herold offers clarification in defence of this broad methodology of his, and only to the extent that he say he thinks its less of an underestimate in the case of Iraq than the Lancet figure would imply. Fair enough, that's his view. I'd expect him to defend his methodology. But the methodology is still passive and thus a "vast underestimate" (his phrase, uncorrected). So his saying in big capital letters that he gets his data from "OTHER NON-MEDIA REPORTS" is simply a way of inflating a non-point by saying it a bit louder.

He says "I am thinking of a maximum order of twice the number of deaths I capture and report". Again, fair enough. That's his opinion. But I see no evidence upon which he bases this arbitrary factor of "twice". Again, I'm tempted to trust the real experts in this field, which are epidemiologists, not economists.

Herold concedes himself that his methods produce a "vast underestimate"; a phrase he doesn't retract, just attempts to qualify. He may not want that to "critique, invalidate, dispute" the idea that IBC is a comprehensive tally, but it plainly does whether he likes it or not. Its either a vast underestimate or its the comprehensive tally that the media have been effectively presenting it as (as ML have rightly observed). It can't be both.

So "ALP", whose post on the "media hell message board" this is, seems especially in his last para to have a bit overexcited about not very much. As though ML have been caught out in some way. On what, precisely, is unclear.

I'm quite happy to criticise ML (often in strong terms) when they've got things wrong, as you'll know from reading my posts on the message board, but I can't see anything much of interest here. Sorry.

Why don't you flag this up on the ML board or email the David's and see how they respond?

Best wishes
David

Peter said...

David,

Thanks for your reply. In fact, it is a correction from Herold (who thought it important enough to request that ZNet intervene - the milder word "clarification" is ZNet's, not Herold's).

Herold is pointing out that Media Lens are in error, and that he doesn't accept Media Lens' misuse of his quote to discredit IBC.

Regardless of how important you think this is, do you not think that (at the very least as a matter of courtesy to Herold) Media Lens should relay the information to their readers?

It would only take a few seconds of their time. Even in the interests of "clarification", people should be allowed to make up their own minds. By withholding this information, Media Lens are effectively preventing this, which is not how I see "open debate" working.

Imagine, for instance, if the media used a Chomsky quote to discredit someone, and then Chomsky indicated in no uncertain terms that his quote "should not and cannot be used" (Herold's exact words) to discredit the other party.

What would be your reaction if the media outlet in question didn't relay Chomsky's response to its readers? It would be outrageous, wouldn't it?

You say this is "overexcitement over not very much". But the point is that people should be allowed to make up their own minds how important it is. You don't think it's important, and that's fine. But shouldn't others be allowed to decide for themselves? If Chomsky, in the hypothetical case, thought it important enough to respond (as Herold does in the real case), then that should be respected.

It shouldn't require a prompt from me or anyone else for Media Lens to simply relay Herold's objections to their readers. That they haven't done so says a lot about their commitment to open debate, I would suggest.

Thanks,
Peter.

Peter said...

David, one further point if I may...

You say:
...what the David's say about Herold in the piece in question is an entirely faithful and accurate representation of what it says in the Toronto Star article that they cite...

I don't buy this. You don't expect Media Lens to repeat, as truth, something they read in the very media which they criticise for not telling the truth. You expect, as an absolute minimum, that they would check their facts. That they repeated a number of factual errors is sloppy, whichever way you look at it. And, of course, they should issue a correction, just as they expect journalists to issue corrections.

Thank,
Peter

David Wearing said...

Peter - sorry, you've misread this situation.

Its Herold's own quote that his method produces a "vast underestimate" that "critiques, invalidates, disputes" the idea that IBC is a comprehensive tally.

If Herold doesn't like the implication of his own words that's his problem, not the problem of those who quote him, and quote him accurately.

you say
Herold is pointing out that Media Lens are in error

Which error? That IBC were inspired by a different study? As I've said, if the study used broadly the same methodology its irrelevant. And the error was the Toronto Star's in any case.

Herold points out no other "error" in his note.

you say
and that he doesn't accept Media Lens' misuse of his quote to discredit IBC

In what way do medialens misuse his quote? They quoted him saying his methods produce a "vast underestimate". He doesn't retract that. His "clarification" is that this doesn't mean he endorses the Lancet figure. So what? They didn't say he did. They quoted him saying that the method produces an "vast underestimate". Which it does.

In my view this did not require a note from ZNet and they were wrong to insert one. The one error, which I mentioned above, is apparently trivial, and is an error of the Toronto Star's.

If people want a right of reply to Newspapers they write a letter which may get published. If Herold or you want a right of reply on this you can post on the message board or email the editors.

Again, I'm more than happy to point out when ML have got things wrong, as is well known by now. If there was something here I'd be raising it with them. But there isn't.

David Wearing said...

I don't buy this. You don't expect Media Lens to repeat, as truth, something they read in the very media which they criticise for not telling the truth.

This is a bit silly, Peter. You expect them to double-check every source they quote? Can you imagine if every writer did this? If every academic who wrote a paper duplicated the work of the several dozen papers he/she drew on to make sure they'd not madea any errors. That's preposterous. You cover this point by saying "according to" or otherwise being open about who your sources are, and that's what ML have done.

And, of course, they should issue a correction, just as they expect journalists to issue corrections.

As I said in my last post. There's no correction for them to make.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this Peter. It strikes me as an total waste of time. If you want to pursue it with ML go ahead. No one's stopping you.

 

Peter said...

David, you say:

Its Herold's own quote that his method produces a "vast underestimate" that "critiques, invalidates, disputes" the idea that IBC is a comprehensive tally.

In fact, Herold is clear that his words "vast underestimate" "cannot" be used to "critique, invalidate, dispute" IBC's work. (That IBC's figure isn't a "comprehensive tally" has never been in dispute by IBC or Herold - that's a red herring).

It "cannot" correctly be applied to IBC's work since it was made about a study with different conditions (and a different methodology) than IBC's.

In any case, Herold also points out that by "vast underestimate" he's referring to "a maximum order of twice the number of deaths I capture and report".

So, Media Lens made incorrect assumptions about what Herold meant by the word "vast". Could they not have checked with Herold before asserting that IBC had never "accepted" their own count was an underestimate in the "vast" sense meant by Herold?

Media Lens should perhaps issue a correction saying that IBC have, in fact, said that their count may undercount by this degree.

You say:
If Herold doesn't like the implication of his own words that's his problem, not the problem of those who quote him, and quote him accurately.

Come on. As I'm sure you appreciate, David, it's possible (and indeed common) to quote someone "accurately" and yet misuse that quote by making unwarranted assumptions relating to it. This is what Media Lens have done. This is the point Herold is making when he says his quote "cannot" be used to invalidate IBC's work.

You say:
Which error? That IBC were inspired by a different study? As I've said, if the study used broadly the same methodology its irrelevant. And the error was the Toronto Star's in any case.

A factual error is a factual error. Media Lens should check their facts, especially when they lift those "facts" from the very media that they criticise. That you find it irrelevant doesn't make it less of an error. Herold clearly doesn't think it's an irrelevance. I think it's an indication of sloppiness by Media Lens that they sinply lift this incorrect statement from The Star without checking its veracity.

You say:
Herold points out no other "error" in his note.

Another Media Lens' error (corrected by Herold) was to write: "There is no reason to believe that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very different results."

 

Peter said...

David said:
You expect them to double-check every source they quote?

Not every source. I wouldn't expect them to check facts from sources they find reliable. But they don't find the media reliable - especially on this issue. In fact they're among the most vocal people on the planet in telling us not to trust media "facts".

So it's ironic that in their build-up of "facts" leading to their criticism of IBC, they would simply lift an erroneous fact, without checking it, straight from the media.

You say:
You cover this point by saying "according to" or otherwise being open about who your sources are, and that's what ML have done

Not in this case. They simply lift the erroneous fact as if it's their own. They don't say "according to the Star".

I'm sorry, David, but it is sloppy and lazy, as the original poster commented. And combined with the other errors they make (not Herold related - documented in another thread at Media Hell), I can't think of another article I've read recently which is more in need of a series of corrections, so that its readers aren't mislead.

Thanks,
Peter

 


COMMENTS Post comment

 

Comment 01 – Peter October 28 2007, 15:38

Well, this issue has finally been raised on the Media Lens board, and the Media Lens editors claim this is the first they've heard about it. I have my doubts about this – we're to believe the Znet editors didn't inform them about the change to their article and they didn't see the various comments posted on related boards and none of their readers mentioned it to them? This seems unlikely.

Anyway, now that they know about it, they will hopefully inform all their subscribers that Professor Herold objected to their use of his quote. But, somehow, I don't think that's how it's going to turn out - I suspect they'll find a way to twist it into another attack on IBC.

Comment 02 – Russ Bridger October 28 2007, 16:20

Medialens write:

Peter talks about sloppy research and errors, and yet claims our failure to respond to a comment that was not sent to us and that we've only just learned about, "says a lot about [our] commitment to open debate".

That's pretty standard for the kind of thing we've been targeted with for daring to challenge IBC (although only by a very small number of people).

My heart really bleeds for them. I mean, someone had the nerve to suggest that they might have been informed by a ZNet editor that ZNet made changes to their article. How could that be? The injustice.

Medialens are so obviously the persecuted victims here. After "daring" to smear a tiny group of volunteers (for months and months), they are "targeted" by a "very small number of people" (including Peter). It's just terrible.

Get a fucking life, Medialens - and stop smearing those who selflessly volunteer their spare time to catalogue deaths caused by illegal wars started by our government.

Comment 03 – David Wearing October 28 2007, 16:28

Just to note that the dialogue contiunes past the point reproduced by Peter here. The full conversation is here:
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk[...]
under a blog post of mine on an unrelatd topic.

Comment 04 – BBJE October 28 2007, 17:31

Peter's word "twisted" is right. These ML guys are twisting what is otherwise pretty clear. The point they made was that whereas Marc Herold said his study produced a "vast underestimate", IBC didn't. We're to conclude: IBC bad.

But this point doesn't stand up when you read what Herold says about what he means by "vast underestimate". IBC are on record as saying their figures undercount by as much as Herold here says his undercount. The Medialens point is rendered into nonsense.

Comment 05 – ALP October 28 2007, 18:57

David Wearing insists that this is all "fuss about nothing". In a way, I agree with him. But let's be clear: this "fuss" was initiated by Medialens. They made the unwarranted (and incorrect, as it turns out) assumptions about a word, "vast", to score cheap semantic points against IBC. They made the unwarranted (and incorrect) assumptions comparing Herold's and IBC's methodologies, again for no other reason than to snipe at IBC.

Unless it's challenged with fact, this malign "fuss-about-nothing" turns into a sort of mythology which lodges in the minds of the ML-faithful. For example, Medialens have made a lot of "fuss" about the "vigorous, tireless" responses from IBC --- after making a lot of "fuss" over IBC's "refusal to respond". You really couldn't make it up.

Is correcting errors making a "fuss about nothing"? I don't think so - especially when character assassinations and smears are based directly or indirectly on those errors.

Did the Medialens editors only just find out about the ZNet/Herold correction to their own article? Like Peter, I doubt it. It's been up for quite a while now, and it's been commented on here and at POV. As Peter says, it would be unlikely that both of the Medialens editors (who normally seem quickly aware of developments that concern them, or the Lancet/IBC) missed it.

Is it unkind of me to suspect them of dishonesty on this? Not really - they have form (eg their lie about banning Ken Farrell from their board, and their continuing distortions concerning IBC - see here for some of the most recent). A year ago I probably would have given them the benefit of the doubt, but I've seen too much evidence of their underhand ways, especially when it comes to their obsession with IBC.

Comment 06 – Russ Bridger October 28 2007, 19:37

Apparently momo's post was the first that Medialens heard of Herold's correction to their ZNet article. That post was made at 1.32pm. The Medialens editors reply (saying that they'd be posting a response early in the week) was made at 1.39pm.

That means that from a position of complete ignorance on the matter, it took them just 7 minutes to notice and read momo's post, to read and digest the Media Hell post it linked to, to check that post's link to the ZNet article, to decide what their response would be (possibly involving discussion between Edwards and Cromwell - they signed their post "Eds") and to write and post their reply.

I think they are telling porkies.

Comment 07 – Keith October 28 2007, 19:41

"Neither Herold nor IBC dispute that their counts are not "comprehensive tallies". The question has always been by how much they fall short of the actual figure."

If Herold and IBC claim that their counts are half of the actual total, then doesnt that say that they believe that their counts are indeed "comprehensive tallies"? How is it that they can claim that their counts are but half of the actual total without reckoning on their count being comprehensive? (we could look at the definition of comprehensive i suppose)

Did they know that what ever figure they counted that that figure would be half of the actual total before they even started counting? Or is it something in the counting process that led them to declare that their count is half of the actual total. If it is the latter, then surely they are claiming to have made a comprehensive tally (see definition of comprehensive"). If it is the former, then what information did they use? Any idea where the 50% claim comes from?

There has seemingly been no such question for IBC and Herold about how much their counts fall short of the actual total - they claim to already know, as if by instinct or something (where did such a figure of 50% come from, did they simply make it up?).

If IBC and Herold have indeed questioned it, how did they arrive at the answer?

"Media Lens claim that IBC have "never accepted" that their count is a "vast underestimate", yet if they are using the term "vast" in the sense that Herold uses it (and they clearly are), then they are wrong, as IBC have previously said their count may be 50% or even as low as 25% of the actual figure."

I dont know where the Eds at Media Lens got the idea that IBC have never accepted that their count is a "vast underestimate", perhaps IBC have said that they do not accept that their count is a vast underestimate, i dont know. Perhaps people have asked them to accept that it is a "vast underestimate" and they have refused? But if IBC have said that they do accept that their count is a "vast" underestimate (as you say they have, when you say that they are clearly are using it the same way as Herold) then perhaps you can point it out to me where they used the word "vast" (obviously to quote them after the recent comments is after the fact)?

The Eds line about IBC says that IBC dont accept or use the term "vast underestimate", so its no good asking them to prove a negative, eh.

Your line about IBC says that IBC have used the term "vast underestimate" (and what they mean by it), so the onus is on you to bring forth the proof of what you claim, is it not.

All the best.

Kind regards.

-Keith

Comment 08 – Keith October 28 2007, 19:59

"Comment 04 – BBJE October 28 2007, 17:31

Peter's word "twisted" is right. These ML guys are twisting what is otherwise pretty clear. The point they made was that whereas Marc Herold said his study produced a "vast underestimate", IBC didn't. We're to conclude: IBC bad.

But this point doesn't stand up when you read what Herold says about what he means by "vast underestimate". IBC are on record as saying their figures undercount by as much as Herold here says his undercount. The Medialens point is rendered into nonsense."

The Medialens point is surely only rendered into nonesense after someone finds a quote from IBC that supports the idea that IBC also said that their count is a "vast underestimate". (Of course, finding such a quote after the fact would be nonesense).

On the other hand, if it is true that IBC had not accepted that their count is a "vast underestimate", then the Medialens point stands no matter what Herold now says about what he meant by "vast underestimate".

Obviously you cant expect medialens to find something that IBC didnt say, but if IBC have indeed said that their count is a "vast underestimate" then it surely wouldnt be too much trouble to find it and make medialens look pretty silly.

All the best.

Kind regards.

-Keith

Comment 09 – Keith October 29 2007, 05:57

I'm probably as sure as ALP and others that the Eds at Medialens assumed that the term "vast underestimate" meant that his count was less than the 50% figure that Marc Herold has now claimed it to be.

Shame on Medialens for assuming such a thing and all that

But doesnt that beg the question of what Marc Herold would term a 20 or 25% or even a 10% figure to be?

I mean, if '50% = vast' what does 25% or 10% equal? What is larger than "vast" by a factor greater than "vast" ?

I guess the term "vast vast underestimate" might equal 25%, but would "vast vast vast underestimate" equal an underestimate of 12.5%?

And after pondering the possiblity that their counts are less than 50% of the actual total, doesnt that beg the question of where that 50% idea came from?

I dont know, perhaps a figure of 50% is as far as their imagination will stretch, despite the evidence provided by Medialens in their Alert.

Both IBC and Marc Herold appear to insist that they know the actual total based on their count, but on what basis? When did they come up with their 50% figure, was it before during or after their count process?

Comment 10 – ALP October 29 2007, 09:20

Keith, I don't wish to be unkind, but your three longish posts, in quick succession, above, are a good example of a Medialens reader being highly vocal on a subject without doing his homework first.

For example, your repeated question about where the 50% figure comes from has been asked many, many times (by Medialens disciples) and has been answered many, many times - for those paying attention. Clue: it's in the full response provided by IBC after the months of whining from Medialens about how IBC "refused to respond" (circa early 2006, prior to Medialens's whining about how IBC were responding too much).

Comment 11 – sonny October 29 2007, 10:24

Keith gives some indication that apparently the next line in the Media Lens/Roberts fraud will be semantic equivocations over what quantity has to be meant by the unquantified term "vast".

I suspect that since Herold is not a Lancet-cultist like Media Lens, he actually knows something about his methods, and was operating under the assumption that he was speaking to sane people who were interested in what he had to say and would listen, rather than people interested only in seizing and twisting some piece of what he had to say, and ignoring the rest, to suit some delusional agenda. If he has 6,000 or so in his count and he thinks there's probably another few thousand, maybe that seems "vast" to him. Maybe to someone else it doesn't. To the Lancet-cultist, who've chosen to worship the word of gurus who systematically brainwash them into believing lies like "5% completeness is the norm of newspaper reporting in times of war" (etc. etc. etc.); or who are so ignorant as to believe there was actually "evidence provided by Medialens in their Alert", I guess maybe a term like "vast" can only be the invisible hundreds of thousands, or millions of fantasy deaths that their guru has them running around blindly believing.

But then that's the thing with vague quantifiers, they can mean different things on any given day, or to any different user. But I guess we should get ready for some ML rabble-rousing over the semantic implications of "vast", its use or non-use, and the all-important moral implications of its right and wrong semantic interpretations.

Comment 12 – Woofles October 29 2007, 15:03

Keith, you write:

The Medialens point is surely only rendered into nonesense after someone finds a quote from IBC that supports the idea that IBC also said that their count is a "vast underestimate".

John Sloboda said in a BBC interview:

“The claim (that our work is a vast undercount) is made basically on the back of some quite shaky extrapolations from a single study that was carried out with a particular methodology in 2004.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2[...])

So he explicitly rejected that description of IBC's count.

W

Comment 13 – Keith October 29 2007, 17:15

"Keith, I don't wish to be unkind, but your three longish posts, in quick succession, above, are a good example of a Medialens reader being highly vocal on a subject without doing his homework first.

For example, your repeated question about where the 50% figure comes from has been asked many, many times (by Medialens disciples) and has been answered many, many times - for those paying attention. Clue: it's in the full response provided by IBC after the months of whining from Medialens about how IBC "refused to respond" (circa early 2006, prior to Medialens's whining about how IBC were responding too much)."

Well if i missed where the 50% figure comes from i'm not much of a medialens reader am i, shame on me for not paying attention. i am now asking where the figure comes from so why not enlighten me.

So, where did it come from?

Anyway, there was nothing quick about my writing and sending those three messages i assure you.

***

"Keith gives some indication that apparently the next line in the Media Lens/Roberts fraud will be semantic equivocations over what quantity has to be meant by the unquantified term "vast"."

The issue of what "vast" means for IBC was taken up by Peter, i was first replying to his comments, see above.

As for the following comments about what 10% would be if 50% is vast, well, i think you take yourself too seriously sometimes :-) Give it a go and have some fun with it, eh.

"... If he has 6,000 or so in his count and he thinks there's probably another few thousand, maybe that seems "vast" to him. ..."

Maybe it does, stranger things have happened at sea.

"Maybe to someone else it doesn't"

Probably doesnt, considering the Eds apparent assumption.

"To the Lancet-cultist, who've chosen to worship the word of gurus who systematically brainwash them into believing lies like "5% completeness is the norm of newspaper reporting in times of war" (etc. etc. etc.); or who are so ignorant as to believe there was actually "evidence provided by Medialens in their Alert", I guess maybe a term like "vast" can only be the invisible hundreds of thousands, or millions of fantasy deaths that their guru has them running around blindly believing."

Are you saying that the link they provided (http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala[...]) is not evidence of a media count being a lot less than 50%? Hence there being the possibility, hence the comment about the possible stretching of ones imagination.

I'm not sure who the "guru" is supposed to be, is it the Eds at Medialens or the people from that Lancet study, or perhaps the ORB people, or all of them and lots more people besides. Perhaps they are in some sort of conspiracy together creating fantasy deaths?

As for myself, i'm never as sure about such things as you appear to be. It appears you are the one who is blindly following the word of IBC and Marc Herold on this issue.

Kind regards

-Keith

Comment 14 – Keith October 29 2007, 17:19

Thanks Woofles.

IBC's John Slobada appears to be agreement with the Eds from Medialens when it comes to the use of the term "vast", imagine that.

Comment 15 – sonny October 30 2007, 10:18

"Probably doesn't, considering the Eds apparent assumption."

part of the problem is the "Eds" imputing their assumptions to others.

"Are you saying that the link they provided (http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala[...]) is not evidence of a media count being a lot less than 50%?"

I suppose it is evidence for "a" media count of some sort being less than 50% of some other number of some sort in one context. It takes a bit more than that to establish a "norm", or even "evidence", for any kind of media count in any other contexts, unless you're a leading expert, I guess.

"I'm not sure who the "guru" is supposed to be, is it the Eds at Medialens or the people from that Lancet study, or perhaps the ORB people, or all of them and lots more people besides. Perhaps they are in some sort of conspiracy together creating fantasy deaths?"

Well, the first group has no independent thoughts from, and is merely a sock puppet and attack dog for, the second group on this topic ("anonymous leading epidemiologist" anyone?). Not sure what the last group is up to. I guess they're still busy.

You also seem busy playing with the de-contextualized semantics of "vast" with woofles, so I should leave you alone for that too.

Comment 16 – Keith October 30 2007, 18:53

"Comment 15 – sonny October 30 2007, 10:18

...

part of the problem is the "Eds" imputing their assumptions to others."

I agree.

"

...

You also seem busy playing with the de-contextualized semantics of "vast" with woofles, so I should leave you alone for that too."

You can join in if you like, as the discussion of what "vast" means to IBC stems from what Peter had to say at the begining of this discussion, where he said -

"(Posted by Peter on October 28 2007, 13:30)

Media Lens claim that IBC have "never accepted" that their count is a "vast underestimate", yet if they are using the term "vast" in the sense that Herold uses it (and they clearly are), then they are wrong, ..."

I hope there are no deaths in Iraq above and beyond the claims of IBC.

BTW, if anyone does know where IBC got their 50% idea from, i would sincerely like to be told.

Kind regards.

-Keith

 

Post comment

   
Name:
Email:  
Display email
address?
  Don't display    Display
Lifespan of comment   Delete after 3 weeks    Keep permanent if post is permanent  

Comment:

 
Optional link URL:
eg "http://mediahell.org"
 
Optional link text:
eg "Media Hell"
 
 

 

  Messageboard Back to top