Jump to content
OtakuBoards

Writing Mr. Newsman [E]


Charles
 Share

Recommended Posts

This forum is pretty dead but what the heck.

Hey, Mister--Mister Newsman sir,
The pot?s boiling over; give it a good stir.
Deliver me to the static, the static which you provide.
Show me the consequences,
The consequences of a world fractured by divide.
Hey Mister Newsman sir, tell me, what?s your story?

That?s how it is nowadays, baby.
A world without a care,
Facts, anorexic, bare.
Your broad, toothy smile,
White gates to beguile.
The reflection of your glassy eyes,
The plastic of your lies,
Everything you say, manufactured in this way.
Like buildin? a house of clay
On a rainy day.

Mister reporter guy, will you cover yourself in glory?
Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory.
Make the chaos of the world caper and cavort,
Sound off the day?s first report.
You go on, give me your news.
You go on, depict the world, as you choose.
Report what?s to your satisfaction.
Promote sports as the main attraction.

Allot equal time to the weather.
Hey man, the forecast predicts sunny days together.
Mister prophet, guide me on my way,
I need you to ease the stress of the day.
So glamorize the latest catastrophe.
If you have time, if you?re not busy
Brush over the latest foreign policy.

That?s how it is nowadays, baby.
A world without a care,
Facts, anorexic, bare.
Your broad, toothy smile,
White gates to beguile.
The reflection of your glassy eyes,
The plastic of your lies,
Everything you say, manufactured in this way.
Like buildin? a house of clay
On a rainy day.

Mister suit and tie,
You special guy--
Please forgive my cynicism.
Glance over the latest going on?s with your criticism.
Market substance with your witticism.
Mr. Newsman sir, I?ll see you after dinner at six.
Maybe you?ll satisfy my celebrity fix.

News at eleven, Mr. Glitz and Glamour,
I?ll watch, as you enamor.
What?s the latest in Hollywood matrimony?
Money hats making even marriage phony.
I can?t distinguish so well over this pop bologna.
Mr. Newsman sir, you?re a star in the sky
I wouldn?t dare reach you, I wouldn?t try.

That?s how it is nowadays, baby.
A world without a care,
Facts, anorexic, bare.
Your broad, toothy smile,
White gates to beguile.
The reflection of your glassy eyes,
The plastic of your lies,
Everything you say, manufactured in this way.
Like buildin? a house of clay
On a rainy day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is beautiful, Charles. I love the cynical tone of it, and what it's about as well. Wonderfully done.

This is definitely a song, then, I take it, since it's got a verse that repeats throughout it. If it were a poem it would've been shorter.

Well, I really don't have many suggestions. It is kind of long for the average reader these days - since they want it short and quick, so I bet quite a few people just gazed over it quick. You should really do a shorter poem version and see how that goes, that would be cool.

Well, I was thinking about how you spelled baloney - "balogna." I'm partial to the baloney spelling. . .maybe you'd like to give that a think over. If it were my creature, I'd change it to that spelling; but it's yours. :p

Wonderfully done, I can tell you put effort into this. . .the word choices and overall the poem itself are well done. You're such a great writer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Mitch]This is beautiful, Charles. I love the cynical tone of it, and what it's about as well. Wonderfully done.

This is definitely a song, then, I take it, since it's got a verse that repeats throughout it. If it were a poem it would've been shorter.

Well, I really don't have many suggestions. It is kind of long for the average reader these days - since they want it short and quick, so I bet quite a few people just gazed over it quick. You should really do a shorter poem version and see how that goes, that would be cool.

Well, I was thinking about how you spelled baloney - "balogna." I'm partial to the baloney spelling. . .maybe you'd like to give that a think over. If it were my creature, I'd change it to that spelling; but it's yours. :p

Wonderfully done, I can tell you put effort into this. . .the word choices and overall the poem itself are well done. You're such a great writer.[/QUOTE]

Before this fades into obscurity forever, I just want to say thank you Mitch. I'm glad that at least somebody cared enough to reply. Although I must admit that if it's too long for people to read through (it should only take thirty seconds to a minute to get through) then I'd rather not cater to the casual crowd because I may as well be writing to a piece of lettuce. For, it would give me the same response that most of these people have. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you know what the biggest problem with this piece is? I read it and I can't hear anything other than Elvis doing a really grating and screechy Motown version of this. It's something with the opening lines that echoes "Mr. Postman." It's one of those weird-ass things that doesn't happen with me very often. I've got Diana Ross' voice in my head...and it hurts severely! Thanks a lot, jerk!

Anyway. There's really not much that can be said about the piece. It's a gorgeous indictment of the current trend of entertainment journalism, where the anchor at that desk is only there for one of two reasons: Pretty face, or because they're an actor. Sometimes it's both.

What's remarkable is how it nails the characterization of the proto-typical plastic newscaster. But, I think there's one mistake made in that characterization, and I suppose it relates to the comment I made previously regarding entertainment journalism.

The piece is only relevant when talking about the entertainment journalism a la FoxNews-O'Reilly Factor, or The Situation with Tucker whatever-the-hell-his-name-is, Chris Matthews on Hardball, Scarborough County, etc.

But I'm not sure how accurate the indictment is when considering the actual news programs on CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. You watch those and they're actually reporting the news and not catering to a specific ideology.

And I think the piece is intended to be an indictment of more the ideologic news than just anchormen:

"The pot?s boiling over; give it a good stir./Deliver me to the static, the static which you provide./Show me the consequences,"

"Your broad, toothy smile,/White gates to beguile./The reflection of your glassy eyes,/The plastic of your lies,/Everything you say, manufactured in this way."

"Mister reporter guy, will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory."

"You go on, give me your news./You go on, depict the world, as you choose./Report what?s to your satisfaction."

That's all Bill O'Reilly, Tucker, etc. Those are the fundamentals of entertainment journalism, and while the local news anchors certainly cater to the sports a bit more, or the violence...the veracity of those statements loses strength when compared against the local news anchors.

So...my main concern is that your criticisms are missing the mark through indicting the entire anchorship, rather than indicting those who are truly guilty. That's not to say you aren't, but it could be clearer.

Make it obvious you're going after the O'Reillies and Tuckers of the industry, not Gary Papa or Lisa Thomas-Laurie, for example.

(For those not from South Jersey, Gary and Lisa are local news anchors who generally report it without that entertainment gloss plastic-ness.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I drew the inspiration from Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man." Try listening to that to offset the Diana Ross voice.

Otherwise, um, I'd say that I have to disagree with your views on local news anchors. This is aimed directly at the local news for various reasons. A typical newscast dedicates about fifteen minutes to sports-related coverage. Maybe more. And then you have other segments such as traffic and weather which, combined take up a considerable amount of the time slot. Consider also the emphasis put on celebrities on local newscasts (not entertainment programs). I remember [i]constantly[/i] hearing about Bennifer on the local news numerous times in one sitting when it was a hot story. Now, let's factor in fluff, feel-good stories, such segments showing babies' first birthday pictures or a local hero, and you've even less time to cover real news. On top of that, you'll notice a lot of news stories that aren't real news to begin with. They'll talk about a car that was broken into several days ago. They still haven't found the culprit, and nothing's been resolved, so they're essentially wasting time covering old news that's barely news at all.

Now subtract the time they spend on commercials. By the way these happen to include numerous automobile commercials, since, well, automanufacturers happen to be key sponsers of news programs. Which, coincidentally leads to a lack of coverage on air pollution caused by autos. So, just how much real news is left on the local news compared to what you would read in a newspaper or watch on BBC? Not much. I'd suggest really watching and interpreting what you see on the local news. You'd be surprised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Charles here. A lot of the time that I actually bother to check out the local news on TV, I don't really feel that I'm hearing real [i]news[/i] unless there is a story floating around that only the laziest group of newscasters wouldn't cover. For example, there was some decent coverage of Hurricane Katrina, and there has been a bit of coverage on the big brushfires that have been spreading around southern California as of late. But other than that, I would say that the local news falls right in line with Charles's description of them, [i]especially[/i] the 'biggest' of the local news shows (I guess that Good Day, L.A. on Fox would be the biggest local news show around here).

As for the poem itself, I liked it. There's a nice, simple rhythm to it, and it's obvious that I agree with your position regarding TV news lol. Also, I like how direct the poem is in terms of the subject matter - when I read it, I don't get the sense that you're trying to BS me about things. You're not dancing around the subject. I like that a lot. I don't really know what I have in the way of suggestions, though... I don't feel that the poem is too long. At least it didn't take me very long to read through and digest lol.

Also, I should probably reply to your poetry more often. I usually like your poems, but I almost never know what to say. But what the hell; saying something is better than saying nothing, right? :)

EDIT: By the way, Alex, I believe that's Tucker Carlson you're referring to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose my biggest question is what do you really expect from the local news, though? Some of the criticisms of the poem are focused on world events, "world fractured by divide," "will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory," "You go on, give me your news./You go on, depict the world, as you choose./Report what?s to your satisfaction."

I don't know what it is you're seeing on local news, but when I've watched it recently, the farthest any of those desk-jockeys have gone is...outside on their office lawn to do the weather report.

Occasionally you'd see one of the reporters out in the field, sometimes down the shore to cover a storm, but other than that...they're not covering themselves in glory.

And considering the entertainment journalism today? Anything you see on local news is nothing compared to the crap those more uppity shows pull.

I remember seeing The Abrams Report when the host took it upon himself to report "right in the thick of things" in New Orleans. After a few days, he was really roughing it. His scruffy stubble was beginning to show. He had bags under his eyes. His hair wasn't perfect anymore. You want to criticise local newscasters for covering themselves in glory? A much more suitable target is Dan Abrams.

Or Geraldo Rivera. His "coverage" of what...Afghanistan? Iraq? It was completely irresponsible. Ignoring the fact he's a simple bumf-ck, lol, that he had no reason to be out there in the first place, we all know he was in it to get his ugly mug on-camera.

And he was doing the same type of crap Abrams was pulling in New Orleans: "I'm right next to _______, [insert anchor here], and I can't believe what I'm seeing!"

Not to mention the big-name networks like Fox, MSNBC and their ilk who, all together, sent upwards of a few dozen reporters to cover what? Strong, gusty winds, lots of rain...a hurricane that isn't even on-shore yet. lol.

After seeing what journalism is on the major networks like that, I'm sorry if I have trouble agreeing with your sentiments that the local anchors try to cover themselves in glory. lol. Because as it stands, if you're criticising a lack of journalistic integrity, or what I like to call the Asshat Journalist, the real offenders are the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Jim Abrams, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, etc.

"The pot?s boiling over; give it a good stir" is what O'Reilly and Tucker do on a regular basis. They intentionally stir things up. I don't even know if I have to pull in any specific examples from O'Reilly, because I would think it'd be pretty common knowledge at this point--I would think we're all pretty aware of the major ideologic foot-in-the-mouth things he's said.

But I'm not sure how many watch Tucker Carlson frequently. I don't watch too often, but his new show is complete crap, because the guy can't do commentary worth a damn. He was interviewing this one Atheist who was fighting for the "Under God" to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance...all that jazz. Now, we all can see how silly some of that argument is, but Tucker was saying things to rile the guy up.

Ignoring how Tucker was laughing in the guy's face the entire time, when he was closing the segment out, he's saying "God bless you," "God help you," stuff like that. He was intentionally saying it, just to get the reaction. The pot was already boiling over there. And Tucker was giving it a stir.

And you know what happened? Nothing. The Atheist knew exactly what Tucker was trying to do and just chuckled.

So, again, after watching the entertainment journalism...I'm having trouble seeing the issues you're seeing with local news, because local news isn't stirring the pot, especially when you look at Tucker and those other dicks, haha.

I'm just not seeing how your criticisms as directed toward local news are valid when there's a much clearer offender out there today, and I'm not sure why you expect local news to report on world events like...well, a world event we couldn't find on World News Tonight. Are you looking for coverage of a civil war in Djibouti?

There's a reason Action News here has shots of Philadelphia in their opening montage: because they're a Philadelphia-based news show, whose primary focus is Philadelphia and other surrounding local news. Sometimes they'll go outside of that and report something going on in California, but they're a local news show at heart.

What I'm saying is, you're criticising a local news show for being a local news show.

...when's the last time Action News had a reporter in the Middle East, for example? And how many reporters from MSNBC have been across the globe? At least criticise the right networks and programs for the right things. lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Brasil]I suppose my biggest question is what do you really expect from the local news, though? Some of the criticisms of the poem are focused on world events, "world fractured by divide," "will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory," "You go on, give me your news./You go on, depict the world, as you choose./Report what?s to your satisfaction."

I don't know what it is you're seeing on local news, but when I've watched it recently, the farthest any of those desk-jockeys have gone is...outside on their office lawn to do the weather report.

Occasionally you'd see one of the reporters out in the field, sometimes down the shore to cover a storm, but other than that...they're not covering themselves in glory.[/quote]

Well, I don't expect much from the local news, and that's the problem. Of course, it should take the time to focus on small issues related to the community, but it doesn't even do that so well. I don't think it takes an honest look at politicial figures, and instead sensationalizes them. It doesn't depict ongoing problems with drug abuse in the suburbs, and it generally just doesn't give viewers an accurate depiction of what's going on in the world around them. If anything, the local news seems to be more of a distraction than it is a source for information.

As I said, it tends to sensationlize everything. Look at the Katrina coverage. Of course it's important and of course it deserves coverage, but you would think it was the only disaster going on in the world. Eventually it just gets to the point where they milk it and sensationalize it so much that it becomes a soap opera. The same goes for 9/11. It becomes less about the victims and more about ratings--hence the lines "will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory. Even when they're in an urban area covering a drive-by shooting or a case of child abuse, I see little motivation to spread awareness or help the community in any way. I see them turning real-world tragedies into entertainment.



[quote]And considering the entertainment journalism today? Anything you see on local news is nothing compared to the crap those more uppity shows pull.

I remember seeing The Abrams Report when the host took it upon himself to report "right in the thick of things" in New Orleans. After a few days, he was really roughing it. His scruffy stubble was beginning to show. He had bags under his eyes. His hair wasn't perfect anymore. You want to criticise local newscasters for covering themselves in glory? A much more suitable target is Dan Abrams.

Or Geraldo Rivera. His "coverage" of what...Afghanistan? Iraq? It was completely irresponsible. Ignoring the fact he's a simple bumf-ck, lol, that he had no reason to be out there in the first place, we all know he was in it to get his ugly mug on-camera.

And he was doing the same type of crap Abrams was pulling in New Orleans: "I'm right next to _______, [insert anchor here], and I can't believe what I'm seeing!"

Not to mention the big-name networks like Fox, MSNBC and their ilk who, all together, sent upwards of a few dozen reporters to cover what? Strong, gusty winds, lots of rain...a hurricane that isn't even on-shore yet. lol.

After seeing what journalism is on the major networks like that, I'm sorry if I have trouble agreeing with your sentiments that the local anchors try to cover themselves in glory. lol. Because as it stands, if you're criticising a lack of journalistic integrity, or what I like to call the Asshat Journalist, the real offenders are the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Jim Abrams, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, etc.

"The pot?s boiling over; give it a good stir" is what O'Reilly and Tucker do on a regular basis. They intentionally stir things up. I don't even know if I have to pull in any specific examples from O'Reilly, because I would think it'd be pretty common knowledge at this point--I would think we're all pretty aware of the major ideologic foot-in-the-mouth things he's said.

But I'm not sure how many watch Tucker Carlson frequently. I don't watch too often, but his new show is complete crap, because the guy can't do commentary worth a damn. He was interviewing this one Atheist who was fighting for the "Under God" to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance...all that jazz. Now, we all can see how silly some of that argument is, but Tucker was saying things to rile the guy up.

Ignoring how Tucker was laughing in the guy's face the entire time, when he was closing the segment out, he's saying "God bless you," "God help you," stuff like that. He was intentionally saying it, just to get the reaction. The pot was already boiling over there. And Tucker was giving it a stir.

And you know what happened? Nothing. The Atheist knew exactly what Tucker was trying to do and just chuckled.

So, again, after watching the entertainment journalism...I'm having trouble seeing the issues you're seeing with local news, because local news isn't stirring the pot, especially when you look at Tucker and those other dicks, haha.[/quote]

I'm sorry to respond to all this so glibly but although I do largely target the local news in my poem, it doesn't mean that the parties you're mentioning can't be included as well. There is a sense of general criticism I'd like to maintain. There's nothing within the poem that puts the people you've mentioned off limits.

[quote]I'm just not seeing how your criticisms as directed toward local news are valid when there's a much clearer offender out there today, and I'm not sure why you expect local news to report on world events like...well, a world event we couldn't find on World News Tonight. Are you looking for coverage of a civil war in Djibouti?

There's a reason Action News here has shots of Philadelphia in their opening montage: because they're a Philadelphia-based news show, whose primary focus is Philadelphia and other surrounding local news. Sometimes they'll go outside of that and report something going on in California, but they're a local news show at heart.[/quote]

Even so, they're barely giving an honest representation of Philadelphia. I'm sure that come December there will be local stories that deserve attention. Yet, the Philadelphia Eagles will take up approximately eighty percent of the program.

[quote]What I'm saying is, you're criticising a local news show for being a local news show.

...when's the last time Action News had a reporter in the Middle East, for example? And how many reporters from MSNBC have been across the globe? At least criticise the right networks and programs for the right things. lol[/QUOTE]

I think I did. I've made it explicitly clear when I outlined to you exactly how much time is alloted to even local news. Not much. lol

Anyway, at least this has proven that there's something to discuss here. Which, of course, is why I don't buy it when people use an excuse along the lines of "there's not much to say." Or complain that the poem is too long. I challenge anyone to link me to any poem on this site that I couldn't write at least a small paragraph on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Charles]Well, I don't expect much from the local news, and that's the problem. Of course, it should take the time to focus on small issues related to the community, but it doesn't even do that so well. [b]I don't think it takes an honest look at politicial figures, and instead sensationalizes them[/b]. [b]It doesn't depict ongoing problems with drug abuse in the suburbs, and it generally just doesn't give viewers an accurate depiction of what's going on in the world around them[/b]. If anything, the local news seems to be more of a distraction than it is a source for information.

As I said, it tends to sensationlize everything. Look at the [b]Katrina[/b] coverage. [b]Of course it's important and of course it deserves coverage, but you would think it was the only disaster going on in the world[/b]. Eventually it just gets to the point where they milk it and sensationalize it so much that it becomes a soap opera. [b]The same goes for 9/11[/b]. It [b]becomes less about the victims and more about ratings[/b]--hence the lines [b]"will you cover yourself in glory?/Don?t spare a single detail, make it gory."[/b] Even when they're [b]in an urban area covering a drive-by shooting or a case of child abuse[/b], I see little motivation to spread awareness or help the community in any way.[b] I see them turning real-world tragedies into entertainment[/b].

Even so, they're barely giving an honest representation of Philadelphia. I'm sure that come December there will be local stories that deserve attention. Yet, the Philadelphia Eagles will take up approximately eighty percent of the program.

I think I did. I've made it explicitly clear when I outlined to you exactly how much time is alloted to even local news. Not much. lol[/quote]
Again, though, to be disappointed by local news shows, you'd have to have expectations to begin with.

Your discussion about drug abuse in the suburbs doesn't really appear relevant, because that's the type of material they have special programs for. Not to sound trite, but they do air public awareness programs from time to time. They're not ignoring the suburb drug abuse issue on the 6:00 news; they just have that focus on a different program, same with world news/events.

What kind of honest look are you expecting when talking about political figures? Or for that matter, what kind of non-sensationalized look? Politics has become a circus on its own. There's virtually no way--in all honesty, it's nearly impossible to report anything in the political arena without it sounding absurd and exaggerated. That's what politics are.

Regarding world events (even though Katrina and 9/11 aren't "world events," necessarily), are we looking for an Action News update on the rebel freedom fighters in Bangladesh? I'm not trying to sound glib here, Charles, but what world events is a local news show going to be able to cover? I'd be hard-pressed to find footage on Action News that isn't either local, acquired from a sister network across the country, or stock footage you could find on the 'net.

Local news at 6 pm is something to get the main headlines across, just like the front page of the newspaper. If there's something going on that requires more detail, you're going to find it on shows like World News Tonight, a show that the late Peter Jennings hosted for a long time.

What I'm saying, I suppose, is that there's a reason we have three, different, back-to-back nightly news shows around here, starting at 5 pm: because 30 minutes is incredibly limiting, especially considering what it takes to produce just one half-hour news show.

To put it in perspective, back in high school, in TV Production, we had equipment that was easily more than 5 years old. The only digital videocamera in the class was a modern one that our instructor purchased for 1,000 dollars through a combination of different funds. Our budget for that class was less than a percent of the budget for Action News at 6. And our expenses were less than a percent of the expenses for Action News at 6.

Local news doesn't go on the air without the advertising and commercials. And I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a sharp decline in everything if they sold 10 minutes less commercial time. I'd be surprised if local news programs were doing only a bit better than breaking even after payroll and such. It costs a lot to produce a nightly show like that.

And really, your summation of the timecheck of the show is the precise example of why criticizing a local news show for what we see on there is appropriate yet pointless at the same time. Local news has remained constant like that for some 30 years now. That's not accidental, nor is it due to broadcaster/producer negligence or malaise. It's just how things work on that level.

And I'm not sure if you've even explained the "cover yourself in glory/give me every detail, make it gory" lines, too. They give you details because that's what reporting is. If it seems like they're making something gory, it's either because it is actually a brutal subject, or they're spicing it up a bit.

If it's the former, they're doing their job. If the latter, then the audience will be more inclined to watch, and if something is absolutely dreadful, like child abuse, some people will be moved to do something about it.

Interestingly, when they're "on the scene," it's often after the paramedics, police, DYFS, etc., are already there. Why is that, you think? Not because the local anchors and reporters don't care. That happens that way because local news shows simply largely lack the resources to be able to go deep undercover, or investigative reporting to break a story before the police know about it.

The only examples I can think of where that happened are...the recent CIA leak and Watergate, and you'll find that in those two instances, it wasn't a complete local news show (not any local news shows, actually) that broke those stories. It was rogue reporters and journalists.

Plus, how does giving you all the details (something reporters want to do...that's why they're reporters) suddenly mean they're covering themselves in glory? Cathy Gandolfo (local reporter) interviewing the mother of a slain teenager is covering herself in glory, because she's interviewing that mother, or reporting the situation, or conveying what police have told her? That's not covering herself in glory; that's just being a reporter.

One last quick thing here. When there are public awareness fundraisers, food drives...virtually any type of humanitarian aid specials, you're going to see local anchors on there. They're not unfeeling monsters, nor are they demonstrating "little motivation to spread awareness or help the community in any way."

They don't show emotion (or at least, they try not to) on the news because breaking down and crying is unprofessionial. Stoicism is a creed of newscasting. Why do you think people are so surprised when anchors and reporters develop a quiver in their voices?

Because the very nature of being a newscaster requires a certain objectivity. Some people see that as just being cold, unfeeling, or generally having a malaise about the stories and related social issues they're covering. It's not. Because that humanity in newscasters and anchors does shine through--rather, break through--in times of crisis. I remember seeing Peter Jennings not entirely composed more than once during his coverage of 9/11.

So...that's why I find your reaction to be a little bit silly. These reporters and all do care. It's just that when they're holding that microphone, they need to remain objective and composed. Off-camera, they're just as human as you or me.

You may ask if they actually care, why don't they cover more important stories. Their philosophy and approach to newscasting are respectable, but the industry isn't, and that timecheck is largely why most of local news is laughable in its limited scope.

[quote]I'm sorry to respond to all this so glibly but although I do largely target the local news in my poem, it doesn't mean that the parties you're mentioning can't be included as well. There is a sense of general criticism I'd like to maintain. There's nothing within the poem that puts the people you've mentioned off limits.[/quote]
My point is that I'd like to see criticism of the talking heads because they think broadcasting from LA, or NYC gives them the legitimacy to go into the middle of New Orleans and get scruffy. Bill O'Reilly is a complete tool, because he absolutely sensationalizes what he's talking about. Telling someone that he'll personally get his staff to help them get a lawyer? :rolleyes: That's a glory-twit right there.

[quote]Anyway, at least this has proven that there's something to discuss here. Which, of course, is why I don't buy it when people use an excuse along the lines of "there's not much to say." Or complain that the poem is too long. I challenge anyone to link me to any poem on this site that I couldn't write at least a small paragraph on.[/QUOTE]
Rock on. I hate whiners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...