Thursday, August 02, 2007

Journalism, Blogging, and David Martin in the Middle

I am frequently amused by bloggers who get full of themselves and start to think of themselves as journalists. (I won't link to any examples - my most frequent critic [the one I live with] says I've been too mean lately.) Simply stated, journalism is similar to much of blogging in that it normally consists of timely writing on current events. But journalism has the added burden of carefully checking facts and getting reliable and verifiable sources, whereas bloggers can, and do, let a story fly based on an email or a suspicion. It's a huge difference, and an important one - I wrote about it here when Dan Margolies of the Star called me to try to find sources on a (true) story I had published based upon an email and a suspicion. We both wound up writing about the same thing, but I did it as a blogger and he did it as a journalist (only after he had confirmation of the facts). Journalists don't publish stories based on rumors and conjecture.

That is, unless you are David Martin of the Pitch. You see, David seems a little worked up that the Wall Street Journal (a source of real journalism, at least until Murdoch gains control) wrote about a small demonstration of Minutemen outside Beth Gottstein's place. David missed the story when it happened (even though he claims he's been "reading about" the Minutemen since someone else at the Pitch wrote about them), and now, egg all over his face, he wants to get to the bottom of this tiny facet of the whole Semler story.

Humorously, he seems surprised that Beth didn't want to talk to him when he shows up, flash photographer in tow, and insists on grilling Gottstein about the demonstration outside a meeting. Ambush journalism has its place, but not when the topic is a 5 week old demonstration consisting of a few Minutemen waving signs outside a plaza condo. In that context, it's just another form of harassment, and Beth treated the jerk like a jerk. Good job, Beth. Too bad you didn't have some mace for him.

Gottstein showed a lot more class than she needed to, and called him up to give him the interview he wanted. In it, he accuses her of making up the demonstration, and demands to know where the Wall Street Journal got its story. Beth, having moved past this 5 week old story, refuses to play his game, and rebuffs his attempts to stir up another fight between herself and the Minutemen crazies. She, like everyone else, knows that if she gives him a quote about the demonstration, he'll use it to provoke another one, and nobody except a failing "journalist" would benefit from that.

In other words, David Martin just got outscooped by the Wall Street Journal and outsmarted by Beth Gottstein. It's been a bad week, and he's feeling fussy about it. He's forced a photographer to invest time in this fool's errand, and he has no story. People must be kind of chuckling at him around the office.

Instead of being a journalist and sticking to the verified facts, David Martin attacks. He actually publishes an article based on his unverified suspicion that the demonstration didn't happen. Angry that real journalists found a facet of the story that he had totally missed, he assumes it must be false, because he would have known about it if it had happened.

What's his best piece of evidence? That someone with the Minutemen denies that he knew about it. Note - nothing in Martin's article says the Minutemen denied it happened, but a person who was not tied to the demonstration denies that his nutcase organization harassed a city councilperson. There's a shocker! That's enough to run the presses for David Martin, though.

Oh, there's one more bit of evidence, but it contradicts Martin's position. The Minutemen were gathering for a protest in Topeka later that day, so the thought that they decided to raise two kinds of hell on their trip, when they already had their signs painted, makes a fair amount of sense.

Laughably, Martin ends his article with an accusation that Gottstein is not telling the truth, and that she is stirring things up by embellishing the truth to make herself a victim.

David Martin, you have no facts. All you have is a suspicion, and a large dose of frustration. A blogger might run with that, but a journalist most definitely would not. Talk to some of the journalists in your office, and maybe they'll take the time to explain the difference. They pay attention to the difference, and publish their non-journalism on their blog, where it belongs, instead of in print. On the other hand, they might refuse to talk to you, just like Beth Gottstein did, because you cannot be trusted to act like a journalist.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous mainstream said...

I essentially agree with you Dan, this is not really newsworthy stuff. It read more like a hit piece.

8/02/2007 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Brent said...

You make a good point Dan, but sadly, I think "journalism" has taken a huge hit in its credibility because they too aren't spending the time getting multiple sources and fact checking. In their efforts to not get scooped on stories by electronic media, they have really shortened their researching. This has actually, in many cases, dragged journalism down to the level of blogging (in no way elevating the level of blogging up to journalism in most instances).

Obviously, this doesn't apply to all journalists...but it certainly is becoming a scarily common trend.

8/02/2007 9:38 AM  
Anonymous betrayed by funk said...

Dan -

Since you are a lawyer I know you are aware that two competent attorneys can take the same statute and same set of facts and write arguments 180-degrees apart. Fact checking isn't the problem with bloggers or journalism. It's the lack of objectivity on part of both journalists and bloggers.

I am by no means defending David Martin. I like his writing. I like his brand of stories - but - when I met him in person he was kind of a dick to me. I don't mind though - I don't read blogs or news articles becuase I personally like the writers. Much like this blog - and Tony's Kansas City - I prefer reading stuff written by people I kind of dislike.

However, I do think your little crush on Gottstein is very cute! I like how you come to her defense even on non-issues. Who cares if there was or was not a protest outside of her upscale Plaza condo? Not me. I am glad we have big strong men like you to protect the defenseless women of Kansas City.

8/02/2007 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for your post Dan. Someone responsible with a platform needed to take Mr. Martin to task on what he passes off for journalism. I hope Ms. Janovy at The Pitch has the guts to read these posts and think about what kind of paper she wants to run.

In my experience watching Kansas City political reporting, Mr. Martin has earned a reputation for being receptive to a push toward stories by political actors, and I have to wonder whether anyone PUSHED this one?

It is not as if there is not plenty to write about in Kansas City politics. Even if one wants to accept the restriction of sticking to the facts, there are stories out there.

Perhaps if David Martin has time on his hands, he should look into the political maneuvers of Beth Gottstein's opposition in the general election, Doug Gamble.

While Ms. Gottstein's campaign reports have been filed in a timely manner Mr. Gamble's political team seems to have decided to simply stop filing disclosure reports. It took until July 31, 2007, AFTER it was discussed on Blog CCP,for the Gamble campaign to file a post election report and terminate the committee, which I believe was due in March.

This appears to be an interesting political story, but apparently Mr. Martin decided to do what he could to embarrass Ms. Gottstein using speculation, intimidation and innuendo instead.

8/02/2007 11:44 AM  
Blogger reverse_vampyr said...

I mainly agree with you here, Dan. But with the small caveat: "Journalists SHOULDN'T publish stories based on rumors and conjecture."

Just as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. :)

8/02/2007 11:59 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

Agreed. You wrote it a lot better than I did but it's hard for me to believe that somebody just has a "hunch" and when out to stick a camera in someone's face based on that . . . I know that a lot of people think Beth is brave for her stance and it's sad to see that all she got from The Pitch is snark in return. I'm call it a "Stan Cramer" technique but that really isn't fair because Stan did a lot more research and usually had paperwork to back up his claims.

Awesome post Dan!!!

8/02/2007 1:55 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

"While Ms. Gottstein's campaign reports have been filed in a timely manner Mr. Gamble's political team seems to have decided to simply stop filing disclosure reports. It took until July 31, 2007, AFTER it was discussed on Blog CCP,for the Gamble campaign to file a post election report and terminate the committee, which I believe was due in March.

This appears to be an interesting political story"

Anon at 11:44,

No. It really doesn't appear to be an interesting story. It appears to be someone (that'd be you) with a not so veiled agenda against either Gamble or, my guess, Diana Kander. If the report had disclosed payments to Axiom Strategies, that would be an interesting story. If Gamble was refusing to file after being reminded of the overdue report, that would be hints of an interesting story. But "Losing Campaign is Tardy with Disclosures!" is not an interesting story. Sorry.

8/02/2007 2:48 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...


*sigh* so many agendas, so little time.

- the anon you referred to above questions Gamble, most probably as you say due to a anti-Diane Kander agenda. (And that anti-Diane agenda may be well-deserved from what I hear)

- the Pitch has a hit piece on Beth Gottstein, because they have an insanely pro-Funk agenda

- Dan attacks the Pitch because he has a pro-Gottstein agenda (note that the Pitch and Dan, however, both have Pro-Funk agendas)

- and word on the street is that Funk's team may have been gently "encouraging" the investigation of the Minuteman protest claim.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows and intrigue....

8/02/2007 4:17 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Who threw the first stone?

8/02/2007 5:45 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Mainstream - would you please submit a venn diagram of your most recent comment, for those of us who lost track of how I'm attacking Beth because the Pitch supports Funk?

8/02/2007 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok so which is it? Did or did not the Minutemen protest outside of Beth's condo?

If she lied about it, then it is story. If she didn't lie about it and just didn't want to talk about (which is understandable), then the Pitch guy was a dick.

Sine this blog is full of people "in the know", did the minute men actually protest?

8/02/2007 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Martin is not a good reporter. Why didn't he call the woman at the WSJ? No comment from the condo management? Couldn't he talk to a neighbor? Was there a 911 or police report?
The real question is why go after Gottstein? The answer is simple: she had the courage to get on a national newspaper and call Funkhouser what he is: an overly educated academic who cannot even recognize his biases or their extent. This is a favor from the Pitch to Kendrick and that other guy that used to have Kendrick's job but now opens letters (I think Joe is his name).

8/02/2007 9:34 PM  
Anonymous mainstream said...

No Dan that wasn't my point. I was trying to point out, in my usually awkward way, that it was interesting that you and the Pitch both are very much pro-Funk, but opposed over the Gottstein issue.

And the Gottstein issue, in my way of thinking, is really about The Pitch's pro-Funk (and anti-Beth) agenda because of Beth's criticism of the Semler appointment.

Consequently, you're being critical of the Pitch because of the Pitch's pro-funk agenda.

OK. I'm going to stop typing now. I'm starting to confuse myself.

8/02/2007 9:52 PM  
Blogger sophia said...


I think Martin took a shot at Gottstein because he figured her for an easy target. She certainly held up better under pressure than I would have expected based on her reputation as not the best communicator. I imagine that if you're on the local government muck beat, it's easy to get lazy.

8/03/2007 9:41 AM  
Anonymous C.J. Janovy said...

Anonymous 8/2 11:44 a.m. hoped I had the guts to read these posts. I do.

8/03/2007 5:32 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks for reading, CJ. I think Martin screwed up, but I appreciate the work that the Pitch does.

8/03/2007 6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan once thought the rumor of Gamble hiring Roe was started by the Gamble campaign to help them attack Beth's credibility. I would call that sadly insane. Dan's love fest for Beth continues...

8/07/2007 12:33 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

If you're going to spread anonymous lies about someone, it's probably not all that effective to spread them where they will be exposed. I never expressed what I believed was going on in the Gamble/Roe/Gottstein flap. Go back and read the archives if you like. I wasn't involved in either campaign, so I never knew.

As for accusing me of being in a love-fest with Beth, you overstate the case a little bit. We've never sent each other flowers, nor walked hand in hand on the beach, but I do think she's a dedicated community servant, doing what she can to improve her corner of the world. In fact, I think that's true of many politicians on both sides of the aisle. I also think it's true of many bloggers, at all points of the political spectrum. Sadly, I think it's not true of most anonymous commenters.

8/07/2007 6:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, here is what you said:

"I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it. Could this be a case of falsely-claimed victim-hood being used as a political tool by Gamble? Wow, that would be so slimey it almosts sounds like something Roe would do . . ."

dan, what exactly were you saying if you werent taking the postion that gamble started a rumor that his campaign had hired Roe?

Maybe you should change your blogs name to "gone insane"

8/07/2007 10:46 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Thanks for tracking that down, anonymous. Now, can you find anyplace that supports your lie? Because I never, ever stated that the Gamble camp started the Roe rumor, did I? What you quote is clearly thrown out there as a hypothetical. It made as much sense as anything else at that point of the campaign, didn't it?

Could this be a case where an anonymous commenter didn't know what s/he was talking about?

8/07/2007 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, how about this comment from you:

"And, Steve, given your reliance on demonstrably false common speculation, I don't think you ought to be giving your "almost certain" opinion about where the Roe rumor got started. As I stated long ago, both sides should drop it. The Gottstein campaign promptly dropped it, but the Gamble supporters continue, to this day, to whine about it. It seems to be their favorite topic, which makes me think your "almost certainty" is no more likely than the equally plausible possibility that the Gamble campaign planted it just so they could have something to whine about - and, wow, have they ever!"

You said it now stand up to it. Roe was never hired and you ALWAYS suggested it was possible his campaign planted the story. be a man and admit you were wrong

8/11/2007 12:44 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anoonymous - Thanks for proving me right again. It appears that you're a slow learner, so I'll break it down for you.

1. Someone (you?) said that "Dan once thought the rumor of Gamble hiring Roe was started by the Gamble campaign . . . I would call that sadly insane."

2. I pointed out that "I never expressed what I believed was going on in the Gamble/Roe/Gottstein flap", and pointed out that I never knew what was going on.

3. Someone anonymous (you again?) found a quotation that started out with the clear statement "I also have no idea where the rumor started", but somehow thought that showed that I claimed to know what happened.

4. I laughed at that person.

5. Now you have found a quotation that states plainly that either story was equally plausible.

6. I'm laughing at you again, because the question is whether I was "insane" and thought that the rumor came from the Gamble camp.

7. You're attempting to move the goal posts - you still haven't found anything demonstrating what I thought about something I always maintained I didn't know.

8. It was a possibility that the Gamble camp could started the rumor. It is still a possibility, isn't it?

8. You challenge me to "be a man" - what does gender have to do with truthfulness?

I suggest in a gender neutral fashion that you should acknowledge that I have been correct and consistent throughout.

8/11/2007 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

correct and consistant in suggesting an improbable scenario for an obvious situation. You dont you ask Beth is she sent an email claiming Gambled hired Roe? Im guessing you never did b/c you live an a la la land, a grey area of moral revelancing for you where you justify positions based on emotions. Why dont also ask prominant area dems if they received the same email.

Nah, its more fun to play make believe isnt it?!

8/11/2007 3:08 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I probably shouldn't make fun of your writing, in that I managed to have two points numbered "8" in my most recent comment, but, please, try to express yourself one more time. I cannot be certain what in the heck you were trying to write.

8/11/2007 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how about this post from you:

"Did you see the horrible piece put out by the Gamble campaign with the highlit “Jewish Chronicle” quotation? Looks like someone is trying hard to bring out the KKK voters."

Still living in fantasy land Dan?!

8/11/2007 11:21 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

What fantasy land, anonymous? Do you seriously deny that the piece I criticized was designed to appeal to antisemitic voters? Because I feel stronger than ever that it was.

Have you abandoned your argument that I was inconsistent on the Roe issue?

8/12/2007 1:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan , you really are dilusional. Why didnt the Pitch, or Star ro ANYONE else but you also think the the piece was anti-semtic? Where was the ADL or local Jewsih leaders protests?

As for you, only a fool would believe someone would make up a harmful rumor so they could cry foul. Maybe Reiderer's camp sent the anti-gay peice for the same reason.

Why dont you just ask your pal Beth about the email she sent? Is make believe land more fun?

8/14/2007 11:17 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous - I personally don't hold the Star or Pitch up as the arbiters of social mores, do you? I have seen others describe the pieces as anti-semitic, but if you choose to think that it's okay to run an unflattering picture with highlit "jewish" quotations talking about money, then I doubt I'm going to raise your consciousness here.

If you think that a campaign in the closing weeks of an election would not stoop to falsely claiming victim status on a side issue, you are refreshingly idealistic, and to be congratulated on your innocence.

I don't have any interest in asking Beth about the email now. As I advised wayyyyy back before the election, it was time to drop it then. She did. You haven't.

8/15/2007 6:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you dont have aAY interest in theruth? This only reinforces my observation that you are living in a la la land and systematically decide not to pursue facts as they may poke holes in your make believe bubble. You could easily and finally decide who actually started the RUMOR but you dont.

As fo the KKK, please post a link to someone, anyone else that thought it was anti-semitic

8/16/2007 4:49 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Anonymous - I'm trying not to be harsh here, but your logic is way off base.

First, you (or someone using your name) seemed to think that the fact that Roe wasn't paid by Gamble made it less likely that people associated with Gamble would try to plant a false rumor that Gamble was using Roe. Does that make sense to you? Wouldn't it in fact be the opposite? If they had been using him, they certainly would not have started the rumor. Since they weren't, they had that option. I don't think anyone but you cares anymore.

But, on to this alleged email. What would this alleged email show? Nobody has denied that people connected with Gottstein passed on the rumor. Here's my quotation: "Rumor has it that Jeff Roe is helping out the Gamble campaign, and when I say "rumor", I mean rumor. I have no idea whether it is true or not, or whether he's being paid in cash, or promises, or not at all. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it were true, because even a political newcomer like Gamble can see that Roe is the kiss of death in Kansas City - ineffective and divisive.

I also have no idea where the rumor started - it seems that the Gamble side is enjoying their righteous indignation in denying the rumor much more than I've heard anyone from Gottstein's side spreading it."

The issue is not whether the rumor got spread - it clearly did. The issue is where it originated, and the email you want me to find wouldn't answer that question, would it?

As for your wanting me to do your research for you on the anti-semitism of the anti-semitic mailer, I've got better things to do that spend my time proving I'm right when everyone else already knows I am. Even the campaign manager for Gamble acknowledged she could see my point, back when it happened.

Finally, just get over it. It's truly water under the bridge.

8/17/2007 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fanatsy land Dan lives on...

8/17/2007 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here and get a few things off my chest.

Fuck you, anonymous, and fuck you again. I don't see how Dan puts up with your kind of bullshit. You come here and make false points, Dan proves you wrong, then you make other false points, and Dan proves you wrong again, and so you try to change the subject, and he shows where you're wrong 9 times (though he only counts 8), so you come back and make more false points, and he proves your logic is faulty, and then you come back with some bullshit insult.

Dan, why do you treat people like this anonymous piece of crap with even a shred of respect, when he's just going to throw some stupid shit at you and make you go through the effort of logically and calmly showing how wrong he is? I would track down his computer and go kick his ass. Do you know how to do that? If you don't want to do it, why don't you post your visitor logs so I can do it?

I'm tired of seeing people rip on Dan all the time. He's right on the issues about 85% of the time, and he's the only one I've seen who consistently thinks for himself and doesn't jump on whatever bandwagon is popular. He's got the guts to stand up for the way he sees things, and he doesn't back down just because he knows that a hard core of morons will attack everything Gottstein or Funkhauser does.

Dan has the right and ability to delete negative comments, just like the KC Blue Blog does, but, instead, he puts in the effort to address them logically, and, most of the time, with an undue amount of respect.

Dan, if I were you, I would go bonkers on all the anonymous punks giving you shit all the time. I want to thank you for the time you put in on this blog, and I hope you don't let little chickenshit assholes like anonymous here get you down.

And, anonymous, one more thing. Fuck you.

8/17/2007 3:23 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wow, Anonymous 3:23. Thanks.

8/17/2007 6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan was that your boyfriend?

8/18/2007 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is anyone familiar with Patinkin v. City of Bloomington, Indiana (Civil Action No. 07-000482, S.D. Ind.)? I understand that outside counsel for the City of Bloomington, William J. Beggs, whom has ties to the KKK, has successfully manipulated the local court system to oust two prominent Jewish landowners from the town. Why don't stories like this get attention in the national media?

8/27/2007 10:06 PM  
Blogger  said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/25/2008 1:32 AM  
Blogger  said...

盲導犬ユーザーの皆さまが大手ECサイトで商品をご購入される際、グリーンクリックを経由していただくだけでECサイトから支盲導犬。グリーンクリックを利用することで、商品の購入価 格が変わったり、寄付の

8/27/2008 9:05 PM  
Blogger  said...


8/27/2008 9:05 PM  
Blogger  said...

知多半島 旅館多の海の幸を心ゆくまでご知多半島 旅館堪能いただける、数々のご宿泊プランをご用意して知多半島 旅館、皆様のお越しをお待ちいたしております。 

8/27/2008 9:06 PM  
Blogger  said...

盲導犬ユーザーの皆さまが大手ECサイトで商品をご購入される際、グリーンクリックを経由していただくだけでECサイトから支盲導犬。グリーンクリックを利用することで、商品の購入価 格が変わったり、寄付の

8/27/2008 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ネット お小遣い ネット 内職 アクセスアップ 骨盤 ダイエット 骨盤 ダイエット 下半身 ダイエット 下半身 ダイエット 視力回復 トレーニング 視力回復 トレーニング 視力回復 方法 視力回復 方法 夫 浮気 夫 浮気 日経225先物 日経225先物 日経225先物 ETC マイレージ ETC マイレージ ETC マイレージ 腸内洗浄 子宝 子宝 子宝 いびき いびき いびき バストアップ バストアップ バストアップ

9/05/2008 9:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/08/2008 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

鍵屋なら、プレスリリースなら、ウォーターサーバー 比較なら、ウォーターサーバー ランキングなら、FXなら軽貨物なら、おまとめローンなら、債務整理とは、任意整理なら、POS システムなら、ウォーターサーバー ランキングなら、ニュースリリースなら、DM発送代行なら、自動販売機設置なら、過払いとは、キャッシングなら、FX比較なら、おまとめローンです。!

12/17/2008 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

鍵屋なら、プレスリリースなら、ウォーターサーバー 比較なら、ウォーターサーバー ランキングなら、FXなら軽貨物なら、おまとめローンなら、債務整理とは、任意整理なら、POS システムなら、ウォーターサーバー ランキングなら、ニュースリリースなら、DM発送代行なら、自動販売機設置なら、過払いとは、キャッシングなら、FX比較なら、おまとめローンです。!

12/17/2008 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

マンション 買取 1戸建て 査定 1戸建て 買取 SEO対策 福岡 賃貸 車買取 自動車保険 バイク買取 美容整形 労働問題 収益物件不動産売却などにはマンション査定土地売買1戸建て売却が含まれる。 物件探しは広島 不動産 岡山 不動産 松山市 不動産 香川県 不動産 徳島 不動産 高知 不動産 高松 不動産をフルカバーしてます大手で 和歌山 富山 滋賀 石川 山梨 新潟 沖縄 大分 鹿児島 宮崎 熊本 高知

12/17/2008 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

不動産 投資 新築マンション インプラント 広島 引越し マンション 売却 不動産 査定 不動産 売買 広島 賃貸 システム開発 土壌汚染 クチコミ 土地 買取 不動産会社 ホームページ制作 賃貸 長野不動産富山不動産石川不動産福井不動産愛知不動産岐阜不動産三重不動産兵庫不動産滋賀不動産奈良不動産和歌山不動産鳥取不動産島根不動産山口不動産徳島不動産香川不動産愛媛不動産高知不動産佐賀不動産長崎不動産大分不動産宮崎不動産沖縄不動産 ホームページ制作 東京 原油 賃貸

12/21/2008 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12/30/2008 1:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/05/2009 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/06/2009 7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/14/2009 2:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1/29/2009 11:13 AM  
Blogger csy123 said...


3/03/2009 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/10/2009 2:00 AM  
Anonymous China wedding online store said...

cheap wedding gownsdiscount bridal gownsChina wedding dressesChina wedding online storediscount designer wedding dresses

4/24/2009 8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a new player , you may need some game guides or information to enhance yourself.
Sho Online Mun is one of the hardest theme for every class at the beginning . You must have a good way to manage your Sho Mun.If yor are a lucky guy ,you can earn so many Sho Online gold by yourself . But if you are a not , I just find a nice way to Sho gold. If you need , you can buy buy Sho Online gold at our website . Go to the related page and check the detailed information . Once you have any question , you can connect our customer service at any time .

5/11/2009 8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Making wow gold is the old question : Honestly there is no fast way to make lots of World of Warcraft Gold . Sadly enough a lot of the people that all of a sudden come to with millions of warcraft gold almost overnight probably duped . Although there are a lot of ways to make lots of buy wow gold here I will tell you all of the ways that I know and what I do to buy cheap wow gold.

5/11/2009 8:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home