LJWorld.com

AttaGirl (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations! Whether the marriage will be recognized in Bigoted Kansas or not, I still admire you for your long term relationship and your plans to be married in California. I always see in blogs and forums that someone quotes the Bible as their reason for denouncing Gays and lesbians. Seems people pick and choose scriptures to suit their needs and they also seem to pick scriptures from the Old Testament. Do you realize also that the Bible says it is an Abomination to eat Shellfish? I wonder if the same people who throw the scriptures at us also call Red Lobster and make crude and bigoted comments to them as well?

gwjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations to both of them. I'm proud to know they'll be wearing KU attire as they make their commitment to one another offical!

jayhawk2000 (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations Dave & Mike!

Who knows, maybe the rest of America is on its way to catching up with the enlightened world?

It has been over 10 years now since the UK first gave non-British partners of UK citizens the right to come live in the UK. Since 2005, same-sex British couples have been allowed to marry through civil partnerships.

I'm still waiting for the opportunity for my partner to come with me back to the USA not merely as a visitor but as my husband.

Rob MacRae-McKie
KU class of '96 - British resident since '98

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

So KU will be presented to the world as a gay-endorsed school?Way cool.

iMaMoM (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations and best wishes!

emily_litella (Anonymous) says…

I remember when Mike Silverman wrote a letter to The Pitch saying that as a stockholder in Hallmark he was disappointed that they didn't offer benefits for domestic partners. He didn't realize when he made that up that Hallmark was a private company and didn't have publicly traded stock. So, since he used his name and city, I gave him a call and asked if he was aware Hallmark didn't sell stock. His stammering was very funny to listen to. Mike used call-back and kept ringing my phone. Desperate that I wouldn't answer, he called the police and lied to them too. He told them that I had called him and made gay slurs and threats and that he had it on tape, The police came to my house and told them he was lying and that they should go call his bluff on the tapes. I reminded them that it is a crime to file a false report and that I had no idea what his orientation was nor did I care
Bottom line: he's a liar and he got caught multiple times.
So Mike, if you're reading this, get real mad and call the police or your lawyer. I'm still laughing!!!

Mike's letter to The Pitch…

http://www.pitch.com/2001-05-10/news/let…
…Priceless

bd (Anonymous) says…

We have people dead from tornadoes in this state , not even mentioned in this rag, and this gay stuff is breaking is news LJW, what a joke!

Same old song and dance!

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

AttaGirl, nice to see that ignorance is still alive and breathing. Keep thinking that those who morally disapprove of homosexuality are bigots, that's what you've been told to believe, so it must be true.

bcoleman (Anonymous) says…

emily_litella you have quite the axe to grind with Mr. Silverman, Three years it looks like. I'd call the police on you too if you called me at home to harass me about a error in the pitch. Sounds like you are a classic stalker, Ms. Phelps Congrats.

tvc (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations and best wishes!

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Live and let live. There is too much hate and REAL problems in this world already to be worried about gay people making a commitment to each other. I've got no problem with it at all.

Congrats!

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Our society is based on the Constitution, not the Bible.

Souki (Anonymous) says…

Ms Litella:

I know several people who own Hallmark stock. They're called members of the Hall family. Maybe Mike Silverman is a member of the Hall family.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Keep thinking that those who morally disapprove of homosexuality are bigots”

–––––––—

And I suppose next you're going to try and tell us that people who “morally disapprove” of dark skin pigmentation aren't bigots either.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..

Or in this case, if it behaves like a bigot….

vpete69 (Anonymous) says…

ROFL @ Souki's post. Take a lesson in economics Souki.

jrlii (Anonymous) says…

Just one thing to say on this:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
- Article IV, Section 1, United States Constitution.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

On emily_litella,

I don't even know how to react.

She obviously has no qualms about calling someone regarding a letter to the editor in the Pitch, but hasn't the spine to answer his return call. Interesting.

I also imagine she wasn't laughing quite so hard when she got a knock at the door from the police.

Bottom line: she sounds like a slimeball and is proud of it.

vpete69 (Anonymous) says…

jayhawk2000 (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations Dave & Mike!

Who knows, maybe the rest of America is on its way to catching up with the enlightened world?

==============================================

Yeah, I cant wait for the day where we all become gay! THAT, my friend, is true enlightenment!

bd (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, but the loser button goes to Silverman and his lies!

This paper is also a loser!

none2 (Anonymous) says…

I don't know why some of you pick on emily_litella. You may not like her, but she brought up a legitimate topic. Whomever wrote the letter to the pitch and signed it, wrote an outright lie. If it wasn't who she claims it was, someone needs to say so.

It may sound like a small issue, but where do you draw the line on deception? If someone wrote a letter to the editor about a hate crime based on a terrible beating that they claim they personally saw on Chestnut Street in North Lawrence, would you let them get by with such a false accusation? Lies hurt everybody including causes that might otherwise have legitimacy. This isn't a slip of the tongue or an accidental mix up of facts, this was a total fabrication. At minimum, there should be a printed apology for the deception.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

How was it an outright lie?

A company does not have to be publicly traded for one to own stock.

I know because I used to work for a company that had privately traded stock. Though most of the stockholders were employees in some fashion, not all were.

Unless emily_litella personally knows Mr. Silverman and his situation, she has no way of knowing one way or another, but still felt the need to call the man at home to harass him about it.

It's anyone's guess as to why she did, but one doesn't have to be a genius to deduce that it was probably the cause that Mr. Silverman was writing about that got her riled up.

none2 (Anonymous) says…

bd says…

“We have people dead from tornadoes in this state , not even mentioned in this rag, and this gay stuff is breaking is news LJW, what a joke!

This paper is also a loser!”
–––––––––––––—
Actually, your acting like the looser. If you want to get your name in the paper, then DO something and quit being a whiner. Sure there were tornadoes last night, and there is a story about it too.

If you don't know how to browse internet or ljworld, ask any child. I'm sure they can help you. If stories like this get your juices flowing, then have the child teach you to how to use a search engine to find more of what interests you.

If your problem is that English is a second language to you, then ask to find out more about English as a Second language courses. I believe the school district offers such classes.

SouthernBelle (Anonymous) says…

He could very well own stock if he is a former employee of Hallmark. As an employee, you can purchase stock thru payroll deduction and there is no clause that says you must give up or sell your stock if you leave the company.

jonas (Anonymous) says…

attagirl: Red Lobster is on my speed dial for just such a purpose.

bd (Anonymous) says…

none2, The storm news story came out after this story by a couple of hours!

You need to get your facts straight before running your mouth!

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

Mazel Tov, Dave and Mike!

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Nice try LS04, but dark skin pigmentation isn't a behavior. You can't morally disapprove of a physical trait. That's like saying you morally disapprove of noses or fingernails. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior, and saying you morally disapprove of it is like saying you morally disapprove of pre-marital sex or adultery. You have proven that you are another victim of the propaganda campaign though;

http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strateg…

Remember, everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot!

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, live and let live. I am sure none of you are bigoted hypocrites and also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage (all between consenting adults of course).

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

I don't even know any bigots anymore because of my use of powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques. I've desensitized and jammed (??!!) all the bigots that I've ever come into contact with. In fact, I don't even know any straights any more because I've converted them all. I was about to reconsider my use of these techniques because mommy3 is so persuasive, but then I realized that things can go OUT and IN of the vajayjay. It's only fair that things be allowed to go OUT and IN of the b-hole. Especially in America. I'm so glad that GOD made me smart. I don't know why all these bigots are writing in. Why haven't they been converted? They must be Martians. We'll get there one day. You only have so much time left. Cue the scary music…

duplenty (Anonymous) says…

“AttaGirl, nice to see that ignorance is still alive and breathing. Keep thinking that those who morally disapprove of homosexuality are bigots, that's what you've been told to believe, so it must be true.”

You can believe whatever the hell you like. When you actively try to stop people from living their lives in the way they see fit, you become a bigot. See how that works?

'Yeah, I cant wait for the day where we all become gay! ”

Ah, another gem from vpete. Perhaps you'd like to share with us a single instance of a hitherto straight person being “gayified” because some gay people got married…

…or are you just worried about your own proclivities?

Congrats, you two. Have a great time.

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

I have some grammatical issues. I think the Martians are getting to me in powerful, sophisticated ways. I'm in fear of losing my homosexuality. Which means that I will begin wearing pleated khakis any minute now. Most importantly, I forgot to say congrats to the boys! Don't let the Martians ruin your day!

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

duplenty…
“When you actively try to stop people from living their lives in the way they see fit, you become a bigot.”
This is not the correct definition of bigot, but we will use it to prove my point.

If you don't allow people to live their lives and be polygamous, or engage in group marriage or incestuous marriage you are a bigot. And if you support gay marriage but not the aforementioned marriage, you area hypocrite. I think many people who post supporting gay marriage, and bashing those they think are bigots, are themselves bigoted hypocrites.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

tanisha…
Hillarious post, kudos.

But on a more serious matter, do you support (between consenting adults); polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages

Baille (Anonymous) says…

Today is Loving Day. Hopefully some day there will be something similar for homosexual unions.

http://www.lovingday.org/holiday.htm

http://www.lovingday.org/cases/loving_v_…

In 1998, a clause that prohibited “marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto or a person who shall have one-eighth or more Negro blood” was removed South Carolina's state constitution. According to a Mason-Dixon poll four months before the vote, 22% of South Carolina voters were opposed to the removal of this clause. It had been introduced in 1895.

In Alabama, it took until 2000 to remove these laws. A referendum was passed that removed this article from the Alabama State Constitution:

“The Legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro, or a descendant of a Negro.”
Alabama State Constitution, Article IV, Section 102

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, Loving Day should also apply to polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages. Go Loving!!

venusinfurs (Anonymous) says…

tanisha — i love you! but please, flat front khakis, ok? all kidding aside, a big shout out to dave and mike. all adults should be able to choose their spouses based on love, not gender.

Miss_Spent (Anonymous) says…

I find it amusing that there are people that do not realize that a company does not have to be publicly traded for someone to own stock in it. They may not go through the same processes, but stock is common in most large companies, public or private. It is a way to raise capital. Private companies have a need for capital as well and this is an option.

Also, here is an article regarding Hallmark stock. http://content.benefitnews.com/retire/de…
How can they be buying back common stock at this time and converting it to preferred stock if it doesn't exist in the first place?

People should educate themselves before calling to harass people.

Besides pointing out ignorance, I would like to congratulate Dave and Mike. I wish them the best. The acknowledgment from California will be a nice step. Hopefully, they will be recognized as any other married couple someday no matter what part of the country they are in.

invictus (Anonymous) says…

stay in california, bring god's wrath on that state not ours

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Nice try LS04, but dark skin pigmentation isn't a behavior.”

–––––

Neither is homosexuality.

Homosexuality is no more a behavior than an allergy to pollen is a behavior.

============================================

“And if you support gay marriage but not the aforementioned marriage, you area hypocrite. I think many people who post supporting gay marriage, and bashing those they think are bigots, are themselves bigoted hypocrites.”

–––––––—

I agree. Personally, I don't think the government should be in the business of restricting personal relationships between consenting adult human beings.

MadAsHell (Anonymous) says…

Congrats Mike and Dave!

All you morons need to get a life.

mkrylee (Anonymous) says…

Congratulations Dave and Mike! I feel very proud to have you two making a stand for your love and representing our already proud gay family! I'm sure there will be many more of us to follow in your footsteps and many waiting for Kansas to step out of their comfort zone and face the inevitable! Whether these bigots want it or not, eventually gay marriage will be passed. And how do I know this you ask? Because “I” am one of your future leaders of this nation and “WE” will continue to fight for our right to LOVE! We are entering a new generation ladies and gentlemen, your children are being taught everyday to love one another for who they are not for their gender. I'm not going to be in your face, but I will say that I think you will be surprised what the future holds for our gay family! and if you dont believe me, then I guess you missed the 30,000+ people who attended kansas city gay pride earlier this month! Once again, congrats to Dave and Mike! Enjoy your beautiful wedding day!

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04…
But gays living together and having a relationship isn't restricted by the government, it just isn't recognized by law giving each member certain rights and obligations (marriage). Whereas polygamy and incest are illegal in every state, and the government restrict the relationship itself. So if that is the truly the position of most gay marriage advocates they should be even more upset and outraged at anti-polygamy and incest laws.

jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…

It looks like Satirical is back with the slippery slope argument. He/she doesn't have one post regarding same-sex marriage that doesn't mention polygamy. The argument is just a way to conceal bigotry.

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

I just ironed my pleats and put on a necklace with a shell or whatever on it. Didn't forget my flip-flops. All while listening to Toby Keith or whatever. Except that I turned Public Enemy up louder so that I could tolerate it. Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Not quite.

Polygamy: I think us gays (oh, and tons of straights; there are more of them, right?) have shown that having multiple consenting partners can be fun and does not bring about Armageddon. My problem is the outfits. Those buns and 19th-century dresses don't work for me. In fact, I imagine that these people would be more accepted if they dressed more like the average American or whatever. Horribly. Just in a different way. I am clearly a bit of a bigot. GOD just told me not to call people names on the street or beat them. I find this to be a small price to pay for the pleasure of my bigotry. I would also be happier if all polygamists were feminists. Women SHOULD be able to have multiple husbands and wives. Reparation!

GOD's Wrath: GOD will never be more mad at California than at us. They dress WAY better! God is so much more mad at flip-flops and pleats than he is at gays! god and Oprah told me.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Hey jhwk2008…
Nice to see you dodging my arguments again. Did you know some people make arguments to make people think, not to espouse personal beliefs or opinions? Though I like your attempt to label me as a bigot without any evidence.

I wander why everyone else is dodging my question about whether they also strongly advocate for polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages.

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

Jeez. OK!!! I strongly advocate for polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriages. As long as these adults are consenting, don't wear pleated khaki, don't listen to Toby Keith, don't do the hippy dance, don't have buns, and are feminists!

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Tanisha….
Well done again. I agree that polygamists would be more accepted in America if they weren't portrayed by the media as strangely dressed. Because there are thousands of polygamist that dress, act, and are normal, but for some reason the media just shows the odd balls.

Right-on, women should be allowed to have multiple spouses, just like men.

none2 (Anonymous) says…

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

“logicsound04…
But gays living together and having a relationship isn't restricted by the government, it just isn't recognized by law giving each member certain rights and obligations (marriage). Whereas polygamy and incest are illegal in every state, and the government restrict the relationship itself. So if that is the truly the position of most gay marriage advocates they should be even more upset and outraged at anti-polygamy and incest laws.”

––––––––––––––-
What wonderful logic. If a foundation for breast cancer research isn't also researching a cure for ovarian cancer, should we criticize their goals? If Bush isn't fighting in Iran as well as Iraq, should we criticize him until he has us fight in Iran also? If a tobacco store owner is pissed about the tobacco restrictions in Lawrence, should we criticize his right to gripe unless he also fights for the right to sell pot?

I'm sure that when the day comes when gays have the right to marry, that there will be others out there that will help you fight for the right to marry your mom, dad, fluffy, and whom/what ever your heart longs for.

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

Dear Satirical,

You make me feel pretty.

xoxoxoxo,

tanisha

vpete69 (Anonymous) says…

Incestuous marriage: If they want to do it, fine. Its sick, but whatever. But they shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Why punish a child so you can bang your sister…or brother.

The biggest punishment that you can force on your child by being incestuous: Fewer presents on your birthday and christmas. Think about it. Your mother is also your aunt, your father is also your uncle, and you only have one set of grandparents. Not to mention that your brother is also your cousin. And if your brother were to have kids, would they be nieces and nephews or would they be second cousins? And second cousins…you can marry those. So at least you have that goin for you.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Satirical,

I would be happy with the following solution: the government ceases all activity related to adult relationships. If brother and sister want to get married, so long as they BOTH want to, whatever. No more tax breaks for heterosexual married couples. And polygamy—as long as the relationship is truly consentual and not a thinly veiled vehicle for abuse, then I don't see why the government has any business making it illegal.

Then there can be no argument made that anyone is discriminated against.

But now that I've addressed your point, answer me this:

Does two wrongs make a right? You use the polygamy and incest argument as if to say “well, we already discriminate against certain types of adult relationships, so what is the harm in discriminating against this type of adult relationship?”

That's a very weak position, as it is predicated—not on the merits of banning homosexual marriage—but on the idea of whether an altogether different type of relationship should be banned.

Granted, there are probably some hypocrites that support allowing homosexual marriage, but the opinions of those people should be used to discredit the entire idea.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

tanisha…
That is because you are a fox. Even a blind man can see.

none2…
Advocates for gay marriage, polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriages are all fighting for the same thing, the right to have their loving relationship recognized by the government and get legal benefits therefrom. If you more strongly support gay marriage than the others it is either because:

(1) You are a hypocrite, and don’t really believe what you espouse except that you support gay marriage b/c it is popular, or homosexuals are more politically and socially influential; while the polygamist, etc., seem peculiar as depicted by the media. And even though you call people who don’t agree with gay marriage ‘bigots’ b/c they think it is odd, you don’t connect the two.

Or (2) You are ignorant and think it is OK to not support causes that share identical goals, and really only care about what affects you (or someone you know). In the latter case why should anyone help support gay marriage if it doesn’t affect them or someone they know. Perhaps b/c it is they fight for the idea mentioned above, which means you cannot separate the two, and if you do you are in reality either ignorant, selfish, a bigot, or a hypocrite.

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Why punish a child so you can bang your sister…or brother.”

–––––

I believe new reasearch has shown that children of incest are not really more likely to have deformities/birth defects than those not born of incest.

If someone has a reference proving or refuting this point, please post it.

Baille (Anonymous) says…

That's true. Slight increase in the chance for genetic mutations. It is a recent study out of England, but it is only one study. Did not look at repeated instance of intergenerational breeding, either, from what I recall. There is also the power differential in many cases of parent/child incestuous relationships that standing alone can justify prohibition. Such considerations would not be present in a polygamous or group marriage scenario.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Logicsound04…
I am not making the argument that since we discriminate against one group we should discriminate against these other groups.

I am making the point that there are a lot of hypocrites out there, who are quick to viciously attack anyone that disagrees with them and call them bigots, but fail to realize they are probably bigoted towards other groups, so maybe they shouldn’t be so judgmental.

Many people dont respond to my question who oppose the legalization of polygamy, incest, and group marriage probably becausethey feel there are negative social consequences to them but have a hard time articulating them, or have always thought or been taught they were wrong, or they seem peculiar. This is the exactly same stance many anti-gay marriage advocates have. Once people realize this they may not be so quick to attack someone for holding an opposing view. Maybe there are legitimate reasons why incest, polygamy, group marriage and even gay marriage shouldn’t be recognized by the government. (Almost) No one is trying to stop gays from having a loving relationship and being free from persecution.

The question is: If we are going to change the definition of marriage, and fundamental institution necessary for proper society, whom do we include and whom do we exclude, and most importantly WHY?

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

Right. The problem with incest is less the chance of deformities/birth defects and more the fact that the children will be destined to bad fashion and possibly a trailer park. I actually think all these groups should be allowed to marry. It should just be orchestrated in tiers according to fashion sense. Us gays can do it this year (unless you wear gold lame or sequins), the polygamists can do it in another forty years (when maybe their clothes will be back “in”), then the incestuous couples can do it in another forty (when global warming will have caused so many problems that we won't even care whether we all have mullets). Or maybe we should bring civil rights up to speed with technology and allow all these groups to get married this year. And try to dress with a little more pride before GOD gets REALLY upset.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

tanisha makes a valid and important point.

Souki (Anonymous) says…

vpete69:

What would a lesson in economics teach me that has anything to do with my comment?

Baille (Anonymous) says…

Civil unions should be open to everyone - except parent/child - or no one.

I can see certain rights and privileges being limited to the number in union, e.g. taxes, DPOA. Number of partners is a choice and that only requires a rational basis. Pick your basis. I don't care. Or maybe there is no rational basis. Belgium doesn't seem to think so: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

Under no circumstances can inherent differences be discriminated against. Color, gender, race, ethnicity: Poles marry Irish, black marries white, boy marries boy.

Why parent/child? Promotes emotional, physical and sexual abuse. I think that limitation passes strict scrutiny.

Marriage? Who cares? You have a religion that allows you to marry your dog, your sister, five guys and four girls? Go for it. Marry away, but it stays separate from the state sanctioned civil union.

There is actually a vigorous and in-depth debate going on over just this issue within the EU legal community. I am not going to repeat here, though. It has been too long since I studied the issues and I have no desire to bone up on it now.

none2 (Anonymous) says…

Satirical, you are simply have a screw loose, and want to argue a logic that you probably don't even follow yourself…

A breast cancer foundation and a ovarian cancer foundation are fighting for the same thing: a cure for cancer that kills people. They are simply focusing on a particular one instead of all of them. Are these kinds of foundations being selfish, bigoted, ignorant, hypocritical?

By your logic, we should not support anybody, anything, or any cause unless it is so watered down that it means nothing to anybody.

Example: Lets not push for more jobs in Lawrence, unless we push for new jobs in EVERY community. Lawrence has the same goals as every community: better life, better pay, better schools. So it is hypocritical for Lawrence to want jobs to come here because, other communities want the SAME thing. If Lawrence does get the jobs it is probably because we had more clout, thus we must reject it and take the moral high ground otherwise we are being selfish, bigoted, or hypocritical. Think of how hard it is to get jobs in St Joe or Garnet or some other town where they don't have the clout that we do. They need jobs worse than here.

duplenty (Anonymous) says…

“This is not the correct definition of bigot, but we will use it to prove my point.”

Uh huh. Remind me again where I said that I was defining the word?

Here's a nice one, from Webster:

“A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.”

You seem to have a giant problem with me, which I fine as I could absolutely care less what you think. However, there is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't rooted in religion. Thus, my point should stand (although I've no doubt that you'll find a reason that it shouldn't).

“If you don't allow people to live their lives and be polygamous, or engage in group marriage or incestuous marriage you are a bigot. And if you support gay marriage but not the aforementioned marriage, you area hypocrite.”

Nice straw man argument. Gay marriage does not equal polygamous, group or incestuous marriage. A monkey can understand the difference, yet it seems to elude you…

BTW - your online flirting with whatsherface is not pretty.

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

56 comments and counting - who'd have thunk it ;-}

bd, if you wonder why this article and ones like it are run, I think you have your answer.

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

Where did all the really crazy people go? I don't even want to argue with Satirical because he makes me feel pretty and logic (whether good or bad) is inevitably BORING.

OZinAK (Anonymous) says…

Congrats, Gentlemen!

none2 (Anonymous) says…

tanisha (Anonymous) says…

Where did all the really crazy people go? I don't even want to argue with Satirical because he makes me feel pretty and logic (whether good or bad) is inevitably BORING.
–––––––––––––—

California. They realized that if they don't get there soon, they won't be able to make it to the reception.