Advertising Age Confirms: Rightie Bloggers Nuts

I remember reading the Confederate Yankee’s Sept. 10 post about New York Times ad rates, and thinking, this whole thing is just a crazy kind of oblique attack on MoveOn. But, I thought, it really isn’t worth writing about. Crazy stuff gets said on these rightie blogs all the time.

Well, I was wrong. How could I have known that the entire Right Wing Echo Machine would line up behind an unresearched blog attack? From Rush Limbaugh to Fox News, to Michelle Malkin, Captains Quarters and just about every major rightie blogger, and rightie milblogger, the screaming was incredible.

They HAD the New York Times dead to rights. Right?

Er … Whoopsies!

Friday’s Advertising Age confirms that there was nothing untoward about the New York Times ad buy by MoveOn.org. Giuliani paid the same price for HIS ad.

Whoops!

Virtually EVERY major Rightie blogger, magazine and news source had trumpeted the Confederate Yankee’s classic 2+2=5 formulation and the Conservative Union even went so far as to file a complaint with the FEC against the New York Times.

Whoops!

Read ’em & weep, righties:

from Advertising Age
Giuliani Also Gets Liberal Discount From Times
Marketers, Take Note: 61% Price Chop for Ad in Grey Lady if You Buy Standby
By Nat Ives and Ira Teinowitz

Published: September 14, 2007

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Rudy Giuliani got a lot of attention yesterday when he attacked The New York Times for giving MoveOn.org what he called sweetheart pricing on the group’s “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad. Mr. Giuliani expertly rode the right-wing wave of anger over what appeared to be a $65,000 bargain — a $116,000 discount off the rate card.
The MoveOn ad that angered Rudy Giuliani and his ad team. The GOP presidential candidate received the same sweet deal he railed against for his rebuttal ad today.

The MoveOn ad that angered Rudy Giuliani and his ad team. The GOP presidential candidate received the same sweet deal he railed against for his rebuttal ad today.

The American Conservative Union went so far as to file a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, claiming that MoveOn and the New York Times Co. violated the “Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.”

[…]

MoveOn told ABC’s Jake Tapper that the group paid $65,000 for a Sept. 10 ad accusing General David Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House” in his status reports on Iraq. The Times rate card implies that weekday, full-page, black-and-white cause, appeal or political ads cost $181,692.

Our old friend Butt Plug Bob is cited directly as the source. The irony in all of this was that Friday was the day that (in between begging for money, and thanking folks for the new laptop they bought for him) the self-righteous little “citizen journalist” decided to preach about journalistic ethics in a carpet chewing post, attacking The New Republic, which, via L’Affaire Beauchamp, is rapidly turning into Bob’s Fifteen Minutes of Fame:

I think we can come up with just a few journalistic offenses more damning than mere plagiarism.

(Gee, I can’t. But then, I’ve been plagiarized, and been a professional writer for more than 30 years. But, as usual, the Confederate Yankee, Butt Plug Bob knows more than us mere mortals. Except … whoops!)

And here’s the “Famous last words” line:

When you try to justify the fact you didn’t do basic fact-checking before you ran these stories …

Advertising Age continues:

A post on the blog Confederate Yankee soon noted the disparity. “While I’m fairly certain that nobody pays ‘sticker’ prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal,” his post said. The New York Post picked up the story yesterday, running a piece headlined “Times Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for ‘Betray Us’ Ad” and followed up with another article and an editorial today. “Citing the shared liberal bias of the group and the Times,” the Post wrote, “one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the ‘family discount.'”

Mr. Giuliani, speaking in Atlanta yesterday, demanded that the Times apologize and offer him the same price.

Standby basis

But MoveOn bought its ad on a “standby” basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn’t get any guarantees. Standby pricing doesn’t appear on the Times rate card — but that kind of ad at a standby rate turns out to run about $65,000.

And that’s what the Giuliani campaign paid as well, according to one person close to the Times, for its counter ad today berating MoveOn and, in turn, Hillary Clinton for refusing to denounce the “Betray Us” ad.

A campaign spokeswoman declined to say what the Giuliani campaign paid but said it was told by the newspaper that it was being charged the same standard rate MoveOn was charged.

Virtually every major Rightie news source got caught in the credibility gap, including Fox News, and all the astroturf groups, like Newsbusters (for whom Butt Plug Bob blogs), The Weekly Standard, Malkin, Captain’s Quarters, Gateway Pundit, Ace of Spaces, O’Reilly, Limbaugh … on and on goes the list. “The Whole Scurvy Crew,” to crib from Pynchon.

Now, who’s lecturing about “fact-checking” and “anonymous sources” and how “incompetent” the Main Stream Media is?

And how come it doesn’t bother anybody that THIS was the guy that Petraeus’ P.R. officer wrote the email “confirming” that Beauchamp’s TNR articles were supposedly debunked?

Hmmm. It’s damned quiet out there in Wingnut Land. Ain’t that funny?

You’d think they’d have the good grace to issue a correction or an apology. After all, they’re sure as hell quick and loud to demand one when anyone else screws up this bad.

(Sound of a lone cricket chirping in a very large hall.)

Courage.

Bookmark and Share

About Hart Williams

Mr. Williams grew up in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico. He lived in Hollywood, California for many years. He has been published in The Washington Post, The Kansas City Star, The Santa Fe Sun, The Los Angeles Free Press, Oui Magazine, New West, and many, many more. A published novelist and a filmed screenwriter, Mr. Williams eschews the decadence of Hollywood for the simple, wholesome goodness of the plain, honest people of the land. He enjoys Luis Buñuel documentaries immensely.
Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Advertising Age Confirms: Rightie Bloggers Nuts

  1. Rico says:

    I am an ill-mannered lout who enters conversations as a guest to hurl insults.

    As you can imagine, I have very few friends.

  2. Rico says:

    I am an ill-mannered lout who enters conversations as a guest to hurl insults.

    As you can imagine, I have very few friends.

  3. Rico says:

    Editing comments is so typical for you libs. Freedom of speech is only for those that agree with your speech. Hypocrisy thy name is democrat.

  4. Rico says:

    Editing comments is so typical for you libs. Freedom of speech is only for those that agree with your speech. Hypocrisy thy name is democrat.

  5. Apple says:

    Ahhhh Rico?

    Would you like some cheese with your whine?

    Sniffle sniffle, have a tissue, for a party that claims it is tough on terrorist (which it is not) ya’ll sure do whine & moan far too often.

  6. Apple says:

    Ahhhh Rico?

    Would you like some cheese with your whine?

    Sniffle sniffle, have a tissue, for a party that claims it is tough on terrorist (which it is not) ya’ll sure do whine & moan far too often.

  7. Rico says:

    I don edit lib comments at my blog no matter how rude. I do believe in free speech. I guess those on the left feel differently? I mean I knew that already but it is good that others can now see it here too.

  8. Rico says:

    I don edit lib comments at my blog no matter how rude. I do believe in free speech. I guess those on the left feel differently? I mean I knew that already but it is good that others can now see it here too.

  9. Rico

    As the owner/editor of the Dem Daily, the general policy here is to engage in civil conversation. If your comments were rude, the writers reserve the right to edit comments.

  10. Rico

    As the owner/editor of the Dem Daily, the general policy here is to engage in civil conversation. If your comments were rude, the writers reserve the right to edit comments.

  11. Rico,

    You can always go to redstate. You will feel much more at home there. You come to a liberal blog and spew. For what? Just to get a rise out of someone? You right wingers think going to a private blog, and ranting with hate and spew is a right. Each blog is owned by a person, and they have a choice. If it was my choice, I would ban you like redstate did me for asking them to enlist. Talk about hypocrites! IF you hate liberals so much, then feel free to carry your ass out of here! Not a good day for this. If you don’t like us, then piss off! You don’t want dialog, you made that clear with your first comment.

  12. Rico,

    You can always go to redstate. You will feel much more at home there. You come to a liberal blog and spew. For what? Just to get a rise out of someone? You right wingers think going to a private blog, and ranting with hate and spew is a right. Each blog is owned by a person, and they have a choice. If it was my choice, I would ban you like redstate did me for asking them to enlist. Talk about hypocrites! IF you hate liberals so much, then feel free to carry your ass out of here! Not a good day for this. If you don’t like us, then piss off! You don’t want dialog, you made that clear with your first comment.

  13. Rico says:

    How much would you squawk about being censored/edited at a conservative site?

    The thing is I do agree that the site owner has the right to edit as he feels necessary. And on my blog I choose not to edit unless it is blatant spam. But if a site owner is going to do so then they should abandon any semblance of being pro free speech on their site.

    And that is the question I was really looking for an answer to. Is this blog for free speech or not? Mine is. If someone is rude I just ignore it and leave it as an example of what Democrats are really like.

    I have been an administrator and moderator on a number of political discussion forums and it is always the libs that jump first on editing/censoring comments by anyone that disagrees with them. This blog is the perfect example of that.

    And if you want exceptionally rude lets go take a look at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground shall we?

    Mr. Williams Replies: How typical of a troll: You throw out the standard, specious arguments, prove the point that you’re an “ill-mannered lout” and claim that you’re being oppressed and “censored.”

    First, you have no more right to spew hate here than if you walked into my home. The difference being that I would grab you by the scruff of the neck and give you a flying lesson at the front door if you did it there. That’s not censorship. You’re a GUEST here. Realize that you are under an obligation to behave as such. I realize that you were failed by whoever taught you manners, but take your manners problems to them, not here. If you need further help, check the Yellow Pages™.

    Secondly: “Free Speech” means that you have the absolute right to explain why your boss is a moron and everybody hates you to anyone at the unemployment office you can get to listen. “Commercial speech” means that whoever owns the microphone makes the rules. “Civil speech” means that you behave yourself. You were clearly warned. One more outburst, and all of your “deathless” commentary vanishes. Capisce?

    Thirdly: If you try some sterile eyewash, you may notioce that this is NOT DailyKos, nor is it Democratic Underground, any more than it’s Free Republic or Rush Limbaugh. If in the former case, you don’t like their policies, either take it up with them, or else find someone who cares. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and your momma knew that when you were five. How come this is the standard argument of the Right now? In the latter case, your comments would have vanished during the moderation phase. Here, you had the opportunity to speak until you proved yourself unworthy of that privilege. You did, and you did.

    Fourth: I don’t care what you do on your blog. That’s your business. (In fact, no one here cares how you administer your blog.) I DO care that, having spent three days laboriously, painstakingly building up the case that Butt Plug Bob’s originating attack on the New York Times was specious, you attack with equal speciousness, with rude and stupid arguments, shifting the burden of proof away from Butt Plug Bob and the Rightie train he was pulling to suggest that the burden of proof is on US. No: it’s on you. No one can, nor do they have to prove a negative. Without proof (and it’s growing by the hour), the fact is that the entire Right Wing Echo Machine got caught with its logical pants down. (And, unlike you, they’re dropping it. Even Butt Plug Bob has dropped trying to defend his argument. )

    You are invited to read the following (in order) and THEN you can give us all your considered, intelligent opinion, instead of just shooting off lame insults and screeching about “censorship”:


    Meet The New Baghdad Bob
    Swiftboated Again
    Betray Us, Petraeus? Righties Can’t Seem To ‘Move On’
    Domino Theory
    How Green Was My Talking Point

    Fifth: if your original point was so important, why are you now trolling about manners, site administration and “censorship”? What happened to your “argument”? A Republican screeching about “censorship” is almost as funny as a Republican complaining that someone got a good deal on a purchase.

    You’re a hypocrite and a rude hypocrite at that, sir. Find a civil tongue or else find other fora in which to use the tongue you’ve got.

  14. Rico says:

    How much would you squawk about being censored/edited at a conservative site?

    The thing is I do agree that the site owner has the right to edit as he feels necessary. And on my blog I choose not to edit unless it is blatant spam. But if a site owner is going to do so then they should abandon any semblance of being pro free speech on their site.

    And that is the question I was really looking for an answer to. Is this blog for free speech or not? Mine is. If someone is rude I just ignore it and leave it as an example of what Democrats are really like.

    I have been an administrator and moderator on a number of political discussion forums and it is always the libs that jump first on editing/censoring comments by anyone that disagrees with them. This blog is the perfect example of that.

    And if you want exceptionally rude lets go take a look at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground shall we?

    Mr. Williams Replies: How typical of a troll: You throw out the standard, specious arguments, prove the point that you’re an “ill-mannered lout” and claim that you’re being oppressed and “censored.”

    First, you have no more right to spew hate here than if you walked into my home. The difference being that I would grab you by the scruff of the neck and give you a flying lesson at the front door if you did it there. That’s not censorship. You’re a GUEST here. Realize that you are under an obligation to behave as such. I realize that you were failed by whoever taught you manners, but take your manners problems to them, not here. If you need further help, check the Yellow Pages™.

    Secondly: “Free Speech” means that you have the absolute right to explain why your boss is a moron and everybody hates you to anyone at the unemployment office you can get to listen. “Commercial speech” means that whoever owns the microphone makes the rules. “Civil speech” means that you behave yourself. You were clearly warned. One more outburst, and all of your “deathless” commentary vanishes. Capisce?

    Thirdly: If you try some sterile eyewash, you may notioce that this is NOT DailyKos, nor is it Democratic Underground, any more than it’s Free Republic or Rush Limbaugh. If in the former case, you don’t like their policies, either take it up with them, or else find someone who cares. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and your momma knew that when you were five. How come this is the standard argument of the Right now? In the latter case, your comments would have vanished during the moderation phase. Here, you had the opportunity to speak until you proved yourself unworthy of that privilege. You did, and you did.

    Fourth: I don’t care what you do on your blog. That’s your business. (In fact, no one here cares how you administer your blog.) I DO care that, having spent three days laboriously, painstakingly building up the case that Butt Plug Bob’s originating attack on the New York Times was specious, you attack with equal speciousness, with rude and stupid arguments, shifting the burden of proof away from Butt Plug Bob and the Rightie train he was pulling to suggest that the burden of proof is on US. No: it’s on you. No one can, nor do they have to prove a negative. Without proof (and it’s growing by the hour), the fact is that the entire Right Wing Echo Machine got caught with its logical pants down. (And, unlike you, they’re dropping it. Even Butt Plug Bob has dropped trying to defend his argument. )

    You are invited to read the following (in order) and THEN you can give us all your considered, intelligent opinion, instead of just shooting off lame insults and screeching about “censorship”:


    Meet The New Baghdad Bob
    Swiftboated Again
    Betray Us, Petraeus? Righties Can’t Seem To ‘Move On’
    Domino Theory
    How Green Was My Talking Point

    Fifth: if your original point was so important, why are you now trolling about manners, site administration and “censorship”? What happened to your “argument”? A Republican screeching about “censorship” is almost as funny as a Republican complaining that someone got a good deal on a purchase.

    You’re a hypocrite and a rude hypocrite at that, sir. Find a civil tongue or else find other fora in which to use the tongue you’ve got.

  15. Rico

    I’ve had comments edited and deleted at conservative blogs – and I tend to not leave rude comments, what’s been edited and deleted have been purely in disagreement with the conservative bloggers point. I don’t squawk about it at the conservative blogs. I move along, because I get that nearly all blog owners and writers moderate comments.

    And sorry… this blog is not the perfect example of editing or censoring comments. It’s rarely done here. Most of the time, rude comments from conservatives are left for our readers to debate and contest.

  16. Rico

    I’ve had comments edited and deleted at conservative blogs – and I tend to not leave rude comments, what’s been edited and deleted have been purely in disagreement with the conservative bloggers point. I don’t squawk about it at the conservative blogs. I move along, because I get that nearly all blog owners and writers moderate comments.

    And sorry… this blog is not the perfect example of editing or censoring comments. It’s rarely done here. Most of the time, rude comments from conservatives are left for our readers to debate and contest.

  17. Rico says:

    Ok then Pamela how about an answer to my question that you censored?

    Your point was that Giuliani getting the same rate as MoveOn.org was proof that the NYT was “fair”.

    My point was how could they possibly charge Giuliani full price after getting caught red handded giving MoveOn such a hefty discount?

    Your point about NYT is invalid.

  18. Rico says:

    Ok then Pamela how about an answer to my question that you censored?

    Your point was that Giuliani getting the same rate as MoveOn.org was proof that the NYT was “fair”.

    My point was how could they possibly charge Giuliani full price after getting caught red handded giving MoveOn such a hefty discount?

    Your point about NYT is invalid.

  19. Rico

    Did you read at the top of the post where it says “posted by harto”?

    I responded to your complaint about your comment being edited as the owner/editor of the Dem Daily and explained that the writers reserve the right to edit and moderate comments.

    That should be clear enough of an explanation that I was not the person who moderated your comment and it should also be clear that I didn’t write the post.

    If I am mistaken, the news that Giuliani has benefited from discounted ads, is news that he has benefited in the past and it came out after he complained about MoveOn’s rates, so Harto’s point is not invalid.

  20. Rico

    Did you read at the top of the post where it says “posted by harto”?

    I responded to your complaint about your comment being edited as the owner/editor of the Dem Daily and explained that the writers reserve the right to edit and moderate comments.

    That should be clear enough of an explanation that I was not the person who moderated your comment and it should also be clear that I didn’t write the post.

    If I am mistaken, the news that Giuliani has benefited from discounted ads, is news that he has benefited in the past and it came out after he complained about MoveOn’s rates, so Harto’s point is not invalid.

  21. Darrell Prows says:

    How does that saying go? “A fool and his ideas are soon parted.”

    Rico, the Playbook got this one wrong. Let go of it. You don’t have some special information on the subject, and to create a conclusion on the basis of lack of knowledge doesn’t do a single thing for your credibility.

    You’re welcome to your own beliefs but this concept that red necks have the right to demand that the world cheer your ability to make unfounded connections was old not long after Limbaugh first unveiled the trick. He’s a professional. He has screeners, etc. It’s one of those things that you’re not supposed to try at home.

  22. Darrell Prows says:

    How does that saying go? “A fool and his ideas are soon parted.”

    Rico, the Playbook got this one wrong. Let go of it. You don’t have some special information on the subject, and to create a conclusion on the basis of lack of knowledge doesn’t do a single thing for your credibility.

    You’re welcome to your own beliefs but this concept that red necks have the right to demand that the world cheer your ability to make unfounded connections was old not long after Limbaugh first unveiled the trick. He’s a professional. He has screeners, etc. It’s one of those things that you’re not supposed to try at home.

  23. Stuart ONeill says:

    Rico:

    As Pamela has said it is not the policy of DemDaily to edit comments in such a way as to change their meaning or intent.

    It wasn’t routine. It wasn’t ok, IMHO. It surely doesn’t reflect on the foundational themes of the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party is one, we hope, of inclusion not exclusion. We are a party of Free Speech not restricted or edited speech. We believe in open debate not restricted events.

    I make no comment on your political choices. Those choices are your right as an American.

    I merely want you to know you have my apologies for having your statement changed.

    Stuart O’Neill
    http://www.politicalinterviews.com

  24. Stuart ONeill says:

    Rico:

    As Pamela has said it is not the policy of DemDaily to edit comments in such a way as to change their meaning or intent.

    It wasn’t routine. It wasn’t ok, IMHO. It surely doesn’t reflect on the foundational themes of the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party is one, we hope, of inclusion not exclusion. We are a party of Free Speech not restricted or edited speech. We believe in open debate not restricted events.

    I make no comment on your political choices. Those choices are your right as an American.

    I merely want you to know you have my apologies for having your statement changed.

    Stuart O’Neill
    http://www.politicalinterviews.com

  25. “And if you want exceptionally rude lets go take a look at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground shall we?”

    First of all thou winger of all nuts, this is not one of those two places mentioned. We cannot be held up for what others do.

    Second of all, Malkin has comments about shooting people. Did she go out of her way to remove them? No, because it was aobut shooting liberals! Rude? I can show you rude. I guess if it’s on a thug blog, it’s good to go huh?

    Next, you accuse Pamela of a question that you had “censored.” She already told you it was not her. It was the writer of this thread. Writers are given a large path to plow here. Maybe it’s time for you to go back, and read the whole thing you cherry picked. Why can you wingnuts not read the whole item? I’m tired of doing your homework for you. Get a life, and get a clue. Be sure to let redstate know to suck my bottom parts when you get back there. I’ve wasted enough time with you troll. Go back to the cave you came from.

  26. “And if you want exceptionally rude lets go take a look at Daily Kos or Democratic Underground shall we?”

    First of all thou winger of all nuts, this is not one of those two places mentioned. We cannot be held up for what others do.

    Second of all, Malkin has comments about shooting people. Did she go out of her way to remove them? No, because it was aobut shooting liberals! Rude? I can show you rude. I guess if it’s on a thug blog, it’s good to go huh?

    Next, you accuse Pamela of a question that you had “censored.” She already told you it was not her. It was the writer of this thread. Writers are given a large path to plow here. Maybe it’s time for you to go back, and read the whole thing you cherry picked. Why can you wingnuts not read the whole item? I’m tired of doing your homework for you. Get a life, and get a clue. Be sure to let redstate know to suck my bottom parts when you get back there. I’ve wasted enough time with you troll. Go back to the cave you came from.

  27. Stuart ONeill says:

    Calmness, Donnie. You have more important things going on in your life. You know how to contact me if you need anything. Anything.

  28. Stuart ONeill says:

    Calmness, Donnie. You have more important things going on in your life. You know how to contact me if you need anything. Anything.

  29. Here’s the “censored” comment that Rico defends so strenuously. Let’s see how worthy of polite company and civil discussion it is:

    Oh please, are you really that simple minded? Of course NYT had to give Giuliani the same rate as the pukes at MoveOn.org after they were caught at it. Even the NYT isnt so dense they thought they could get away with charging Giuliani full price. We have to explain everything for you lefties I guess.

    And THAT, folks, is what our troll was high-mindedly defending: His right to insult, belittle, argue speciously and call me “simple minded” and “dense” — a sobriquet that seems far more comfortably applied to the commenter than the commentee, I note.

  30. Here’s the “censored” comment that Rico defends so strenuously. Let’s see how worthy of polite company and civil discussion it is:

    Oh please, are you really that simple minded? Of course NYT had to give Giuliani the same rate as the pukes at MoveOn.org after they were caught at it. Even the NYT isnt so dense they thought they could get away with charging Giuliani full price. We have to explain everything for you lefties I guess.

    And THAT, folks, is what our troll was high-mindedly defending: His right to insult, belittle, argue speciously and call me “simple minded” and “dense” — a sobriquet that seems far more comfortably applied to the commenter than the commentee, I note.

  31. Darrell Prows says:

    Hart: You’re far and away the best I’ve ever seen at this. Letting the red necks dig and dig and dig, and then using their original words to finish them off is brilliant. I’d like to find a way to package your tecnique up and sell it. We could call it “WD-40 for Wingnuts”.

  32. Darrell Prows says:

    Hart: You’re far and away the best I’ve ever seen at this. Letting the red necks dig and dig and dig, and then using their original words to finish them off is brilliant. I’d like to find a way to package your tecnique up and sell it. We could call it “WD-40 for Wingnuts”.

  33. Thanks, Darrell.

    And, while I don’t always comment ON your comments, I always read them and I always appreciate them.

  34. Thanks, Darrell.

    And, while I don’t always comment ON your comments, I always read them and I always appreciate them.

  35. Ernst Blofeld says:

    Er, well, except that Hart was completely wrong, and that the NYT has admitted to it.

  36. Ernst Blofeld says:

    Er, well, except that Hart was completely wrong, and that the NYT has admitted to it.

  37. Ernst Blofeld

    Er… You’ve voiced your disagreement with Hart’s opinion on this subject in quite a few threads at this point. Perhaps you would like to discuss another topic on the DD? Or perhaps you’re just here to nitpick on this one particular subject? Apparently you’re only interested in the nitpicking, so I will suggest to you that Hart IS entitled to his opinion and you’ve voiced your disagreement and it’s been noted.

  38. Ernst Blofeld

    Er… You’ve voiced your disagreement with Hart’s opinion on this subject in quite a few threads at this point. Perhaps you would like to discuss another topic on the DD? Or perhaps you’re just here to nitpick on this one particular subject? Apparently you’re only interested in the nitpicking, so I will suggest to you that Hart IS entitled to his opinion and you’ve voiced your disagreement and it’s been noted.

  39. Pingback: Dr. Evil Trolls For Retractions « his vorpal sword

  40. Pingback: Dr. Evil Trolls For Retractions « his vorpal sword