WILL THE SOCKPUPPET, PLEASE SPEAK UP (especially for those who nod in agreement without questioning).
So Jane Smith of HPRW and her supporters latest theory (if I understand them right), is that I'm
nothing but a real life 'sockpuppet'** for DB, and that he was presumably
privately emailing me from the Scottish Borders, comments written by himself, for me to post as William Shears in Brentwood, so giving the
appearance that I wasn't and couldn't be him, because we were located
300 miles apart. That being the case, why would I post (as claimed by Jane), comments as
"Douglas" from my location (and vice versa); that kind of
defeats the object of this elaborate deception, and makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL!
There is (possibly) a motif for Douglas pretending to be William Shears, but what possible reason is there for William Shears to pretend to be Douglas?
Have I understood them right?.
Here's what Jane said on Feb.01.2010
"According to Sitemeter, the comments that Douglas
Bruton and William Shears left on my blog both came from someone using a
BTCentralPlus internet connection, who was based in Edinburgh, using
one computer with the IP address 86.131.241.After I pointed this out on
my blog Shears commented again, insisting he was not the same person as
Bruton. This comment also came from a BTCentralPlus account, but this
time one based in Brentwood, Essex, with a different IP address:
217.44.136. At first I thought that I’d made a mistake and was just
about to apologise when Bruton commented on my blog again–this time from
the same IP address in Brentwood, Essex, which Shears had commented
from."
An explanation of what Jane's sitemeter could, and couldn't possibly determine.
http://william-shears.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/could-it-have-been-genuine-mistake.html
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
A NEW LOW?
According
to Jane's "about me" page, she has worked as a 'researcher'. I do
wonder what research she did when she identified me as DB's son? I'm a
father of five with five grandchildren; at a guess DB would have had to
have been about 10 years old when he fathered me! This latest lie would
be laughable if it wasn't so vile. Douglas's real kids do not deserve to
be exposed to unwarranted scrutiny from the worst elements of Jane's
followers, and for her to publicly, and needlessly drag them into her
vendetta against him is low; even for her. If she removes/amends her
comment, I'm more than happy to edit this post.
I have PM'd Jane
giving her re-searchable facts regarding Douglas's family, that clearly
indicate that I am NOT his son. That was a week ago and her post has
still not been removed or amended by her. So in-spite of being in
possession of easily checkable facts, Jane prefers to maintain a blatant
lie; NOTHING NEW THERE THEN.
Monday, 24 September 2012
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
CHEADLE'S BACK
I see Cheadle is back sprouting the same old lies/bullshit;
"When I checked my Sitemeter statistics they showed that Douglas and William Shears shared a couple of IP addresses, and Jane Smith's statistics showed the same."
I've already addressed Cheadle's "sitemeter statistics" lie in the comments to my last blog entry, "Could It Have Been A Genuine Mistake?".
If Cheadle had bothered to keep a closer eye on me since March, he would have noticed that despite my earlier wish to keep my eBay identity from him and Jane, I did actually let it slip on my other blog, ("Jewellery & Antiques"), on 11 April , (see comments to 'Help! What's a Dinkie Doo?") . It was there for all to see, and if anyone had bothered to check, they would have seen I am who I've always said I am; a top rated seller on eBay specializing in vintage and antique jewellery, an eBay member since 05-Oct-02, and based in Harold Wood, Essex, (Harold Wood is near Brentwood and no where near the Scottish Borders).
So a real person and not a figment of Douglas's imagination; (or Cheadle's or Jane's).
Cheadle, this blog will remain until Jane Smith publicly admits she has lied about my identity. Douglas and I do not, and have not, shared an IP address and both you and Jane know that to be true!
I see Cheadle is back sprouting the same old lies/bullshit;
"When I checked my Sitemeter statistics they showed that Douglas and William Shears shared a couple of IP addresses, and Jane Smith's statistics showed the same."
I've already addressed Cheadle's "sitemeter statistics" lie in the comments to my last blog entry, "Could It Have Been A Genuine Mistake?".
If Cheadle had bothered to keep a closer eye on me since March, he would have noticed that despite my earlier wish to keep my eBay identity from him and Jane, I did actually let it slip on my other blog, ("Jewellery & Antiques"), on 11 April , (see comments to 'Help! What's a Dinkie Doo?") . It was there for all to see, and if anyone had bothered to check, they would have seen I am who I've always said I am; a top rated seller on eBay specializing in vintage and antique jewellery, an eBay member since 05-Oct-02, and based in Harold Wood, Essex, (Harold Wood is near Brentwood and no where near the Scottish Borders).
So a real person and not a figment of Douglas's imagination; (or Cheadle's or Jane's).
Cheadle, this blog will remain until Jane Smith publicly admits she has lied about my identity. Douglas and I do not, and have not, shared an IP address and both you and Jane know that to be true!
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Could It Have Been A Genuine Mistake?
Sitemeter only tells you who was on your blog at the time that someone posted a comment. It doesn't say who posted the comment.
So if I visited Jane's blog at say 09.00, and left a comment at 09.15, Jane's SiteMeter would confirm that at approx. 09.15 someone from Essex was on her blog. However if Douglas also visited her blog at 09.10, and remained there for 10mins, then Jane's SiteMeter would confirm to her that at approx. 09.15, (when I left my comment from Essex), someone from Edinburgh was on her blog.
If you check Jane's blog for Jan 30th, you will see that Douglas and I, did indeed post comments close together, and I was constantly going back and forth to see if my comments had been approved, (I would probably have left the page open at some time and just clicked on the refresh button), so it's very likely that we were both on her blog at the same time. Therefore it would have been easy for Jane to have made a simple mistake, and believed that Douglas posted a comment when it was actually me, (and vise versa). But if she had bothered to check her SiteMeter just a little bit closer, she would have also seen that at the time the comments were left, there were two people on her blog, (one in Essex, one in Edinburgh); confirming that our two different ip addresses, were being used at exactly the same time; you can't do that from one computer!
At the time I didn't even know what SiteMeter was, and I don't think Douglas did either, (he probably still doesn't), so I didn't know what information it held, or how to see that information for myself, and now that I do know, it's too late to confirm, as that information is no longer available for Jan 30th. I do recall at the time asking Jane to check her findings though, (on more than one occasion too, as did Douglas), which Jane has confirmed on her blog on Feb 2nd, (confirming that we asked, but not that she'd checked).
Initially Jane's lie, (on Jan 30th), 'could' well have been a genuine 'mistake' by her, but after mine and Douglas's strenuous denials on the same day, surely she would have checked her facts, (any normal person accused of lying would), and she would have known she was wrong with in seconds. Yet she continued with her lie, knowing that at the time Douglas and I were too computer illiterate to expose her, and knowing no one else in this community would doubt her, and check for themselves.
To me that's a deliberate lie, not a mistake!
Now Jane complains of Cheadle's blog;
"All this blog is achieving, along with the discussions which have resulted from it, is to stir up more and more unpleasantness and anger"
Jane, you caused the unpleasantness and anger, you lied when all you had to do was admit you'd made a mistake and apologise for it. Strange how you now show concern when it's your credibility that's on the block; I can't remember you ever showing any concern for unpleasantness, when you chased down any one who showed support for Douglas, or while accusing Douglas of having mental health problems, citing me as just a figment of his deranged mind.
I bet you wish I was now!
So if I visited Jane's blog at say 09.00, and left a comment at 09.15, Jane's SiteMeter would confirm that at approx. 09.15 someone from Essex was on her blog. However if Douglas also visited her blog at 09.10, and remained there for 10mins, then Jane's SiteMeter would confirm to her that at approx. 09.15, (when I left my comment from Essex), someone from Edinburgh was on her blog.
If you check Jane's blog for Jan 30th, you will see that Douglas and I, did indeed post comments close together, and I was constantly going back and forth to see if my comments had been approved, (I would probably have left the page open at some time and just clicked on the refresh button), so it's very likely that we were both on her blog at the same time. Therefore it would have been easy for Jane to have made a simple mistake, and believed that Douglas posted a comment when it was actually me, (and vise versa). But if she had bothered to check her SiteMeter just a little bit closer, she would have also seen that at the time the comments were left, there were two people on her blog, (one in Essex, one in Edinburgh); confirming that our two different ip addresses, were being used at exactly the same time; you can't do that from one computer!
At the time I didn't even know what SiteMeter was, and I don't think Douglas did either, (he probably still doesn't), so I didn't know what information it held, or how to see that information for myself, and now that I do know, it's too late to confirm, as that information is no longer available for Jan 30th. I do recall at the time asking Jane to check her findings though, (on more than one occasion too, as did Douglas), which Jane has confirmed on her blog on Feb 2nd, (confirming that we asked, but not that she'd checked).
Initially Jane's lie, (on Jan 30th), 'could' well have been a genuine 'mistake' by her, but after mine and Douglas's strenuous denials on the same day, surely she would have checked her facts, (any normal person accused of lying would), and she would have known she was wrong with in seconds. Yet she continued with her lie, knowing that at the time Douglas and I were too computer illiterate to expose her, and knowing no one else in this community would doubt her, and check for themselves.
To me that's a deliberate lie, not a mistake!
Now Jane complains of Cheadle's blog;
"All this blog is achieving, along with the discussions which have resulted from it, is to stir up more and more unpleasantness and anger"
Jane, you caused the unpleasantness and anger, you lied when all you had to do was admit you'd made a mistake and apologise for it. Strange how you now show concern when it's your credibility that's on the block; I can't remember you ever showing any concern for unpleasantness, when you chased down any one who showed support for Douglas, or while accusing Douglas of having mental health problems, citing me as just a figment of his deranged mind.
I bet you wish I was now!
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
More Information Required.
Is anyone out there, who subscribes to 'SiteMeter', able to answer this for me?
I don't have a SiteMeter so I'm not exactly sure what information it gives you. Does it tell you the ip identity of the visitor who has left a comment, or does it only tell you the ip identities of those who were on your site when that comment was left? For instance, if there are two people visting your site at the same time, and one of them leaves a message, can SiteMeter actually determine which one of those two visitors left the message, or is that for you to decide based on the time and length of that persons stay?
Is it at all possible that Jane and Doug have made a "mistake", or have they just lied?
I don't have a SiteMeter so I'm not exactly sure what information it gives you. Does it tell you the ip identity of the visitor who has left a comment, or does it only tell you the ip identities of those who were on your site when that comment was left? For instance, if there are two people visting your site at the same time, and one of them leaves a message, can SiteMeter actually determine which one of those two visitors left the message, or is that for you to decide based on the time and length of that persons stay?
Is it at all possible that Jane and Doug have made a "mistake", or have they just lied?
Friday, 26 February 2010
Don't Shoot the Messenger.
On the 30th January, Jane Smith first publicly declared that Douglas and I were one and the same, and that we shared the same computer; same IP address. Knowing this to be clearly untrue, I asked her on more than one occasion, to check her facts.
Jane was given ample opportunity from me, (and it would seem Douglas too), to admit she had made a "mistake", but she chose to maintain a lie; and used the basis of that lie to then express profound public concern for Douglas's mental well-being.
Jane had no reason to lie about me, I have stated right from the start that I am not a writer, she could have so easily dismissed me as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Instead she chose to lie, and use me to further discredit Douglas.
Why? I don't know, only Jane can answer that for you.
Jane has also linked me with someone called Amber, who like me also apparently posts comments from the Brentwood area, and Doug Cheadle, has linked me to someone in the Brentwood area called Barry, (who I think he referred to as Brian).
I state here and now, neither anonymous Barry or Amber, have anything to do with me, I have never posted anything anonymously with-in this community. So for Barry and Amber to both be associated, along with myself, with Brentwood, is either one hell of a coincidence, or another damn lie.
Jane's response posted on the 2 FEBRUARY.
(Although addressed to Douglas and William, it was posted publicly for the benefit of her followers).
"Douglas and William: you insist you're two separate people and yet you both post from the same IP address, you both refer to SiteMeter as "Sitemaster" and you both suggest I "go back and check my machine" when referring to my findings."
(Although addressed to Douglas and William, it was posted publicly for the benefit of her followers).
"Douglas and William: you insist you're two separate people and yet you both post from the same IP address, you both refer to SiteMeter as "Sitemaster" and you both suggest I "go back and check my machine" when referring to my findings."
Jane was given ample opportunity from me, (and it would seem Douglas too), to admit she had made a "mistake", but she chose to maintain a lie; and used the basis of that lie to then express profound public concern for Douglas's mental well-being.
Jane had no reason to lie about me, I have stated right from the start that I am not a writer, she could have so easily dismissed me as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Instead she chose to lie, and use me to further discredit Douglas.
Why? I don't know, only Jane can answer that for you.
Jane has also linked me with someone called Amber, who like me also apparently posts comments from the Brentwood area, and Doug Cheadle, has linked me to someone in the Brentwood area called Barry, (who I think he referred to as Brian).
I state here and now, neither anonymous Barry or Amber, have anything to do with me, I have never posted anything anonymously with-in this community. So for Barry and Amber to both be associated, along with myself, with Brentwood, is either one hell of a coincidence, or another damn lie.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Jane Smith's Lie Unravels!
I have just done some research on IP addresses. If you google WHATS MY IP it directs you to www.whatsmyip.org/- which tells you, free of charge, your full IP address, (mine is 217.44.136.??), you can then click on a tab, 'More Info About You', and it throws up a local map of your location; it doesn't pin-point your house, but shows the area you live in. Someone suggested Douglas might be using a 'proxy' server to hide his IP, well guess what, it quite clearly states on MY 'More Info About You', 'NO PROXY OR INVISIBLE PROXY USED'. You can not 'set up' a separate IP address it's not possible, but you can hide your IP address, and with a proxy server different IP addresses will be used; but NOT MINE! For Douglas to use MY IP address he would need to travel from Scotland to Essex. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR DOUGLAS TO COMMENT OR BLOG USING MY IP ADDRESS IN ESSEX, FROM HIS IP ADDRESS, (approx. 400 miles away), IN THE SCOTTISH BORDERS, (nor is it possible for me to post or blog using Douglas's IP).
Before tonight's research, I went to someone else's blog, that had been recently visited by Jane Smith and some of her cronies, here are a few quotes I read; perhaps some of you will recognize them, perhaps you posted one of them. As usual they were all posted anonymously, which is probably just as well, since Jane Smith's lies have now made complete fools of them all.
THIS INFORMATION PROVES THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR DOUGLAS AND I TO SHARE THE SAME IP ADDRESS/COMPUTER; SO JANE SMITH'S CLAIM THAT WE DO, AND THAT SHE HAS THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT, HAS NOW BEEN EXPOSED AS A LIE,
(which is what I've said all along).
(which is what I've said all along).
Before tonight's research, I went to someone else's blog, that had been recently visited by Jane Smith and some of her cronies, here are a few quotes I read; perhaps some of you will recognize them, perhaps you posted one of them. As usual they were all posted anonymously, which is probably just as well, since Jane Smith's lies have now made complete fools of them all.
"I've read it [Jane's Blog HPRW] and from what I know it's TRUTHFUL and WITHOUT malice."
You obviously didn't know as much as you thought, explain Jane Smith's reason for lying, if it isn't malice!
"He [Douglas] has created another personae- William Shears- as if he's having schizoid episodes."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but he didn't create me; I'd be more worried about Jane's mental health if I were you.
"It has been established that the man [Douglas] has mental health issues"
Wrong again! What has been 'established' here tonight, is that Jane Smith has LIED to you all!
Thank you very much, and goodnight!
Monday, 22 February 2010
What They'd Have You Believe.
"No one is behaving well in this. Why would you set up this blog, having seemingly come from nowhere? Why would Doug Cheadle set up his blog, having seemingly come from nowhere?"
I can't answer for Doug Cheadle, (nor Douglas), but the reason I set up this blog; as I've already explained on Douglas's blog, is because Doug Cheadle and Jane Smith have lied about ME, both claiming they have evidence which proves that Douglas and I are one and the same, and share the same IP address, (same computer). Realistically, I can't prove to you that these two are lying; it's their word against mine, but hopefully MY blog will show you that their lies against ME don't stack up.
You're expected to believe that Douglas, who has on more than one occasion in the past admitted he knows nothing about computers, set up a second IP address, in order that he could speak on behalf of himself, but as a different person. If it is at all possible, and Douglas was able to do it, why did he even bother, why didn't he just set up this, supposedly, fake blog account; it's easy enough to do, and anyone can set up a fake blog account, (eg. Doug Cheadle), you don't need two IP addresses to do it. IP addresses have rarely ever been mentioned in this community, until I turned up on the scene, are you to believe that Douglas had the foresight to know IP addresses would become an issue here, is that why he set up a second IP address? Douglas is a real person not a character from an Agatha Christie novel.
You're then expected to believe that having gone to all the trouble of setting up a second IP address, (if that's possible), Douglas then leaves comments from it using his own name!
After his IP scam is supposedly rumbled, he then, supposedly, leaves comments 'anonymously' on the SAME blogs, and uses the SAME, supposedly, fake IP address; as if he thought they wouldn't notice!
Jane Smith and Doug Cheadle want you to believe I'm a fictional character created by Douglas, the mastermind who supposedly went to all the trouble of creating an IP address for his fictional character, but couldn't be arsed creating a simple blogging history for him too. And what of the character he has supposedly created, ME; well he's not a writer, so he knows nothing about writing or the processes involved; he claims he doesn't have an o'level to his name, so he can't then reveal himself as a well-read professional person, like a lawyer, Doctor, or Professor. I think you would have to agree, I'M not one of Douglas's best ideas for a fictional character, surely he would have created someone of more use to him in his campaign, someone at least believable to you all?
"Why should anyone be expected to believe that you and Doug Cheadle are disinterested parties rather than being closely connected to this case?"
I wouldn't say I was 'disinterested' I was obviously interested enough to read reams and reams of blogs and comments. I would say I've probably read more on this subject than 95% of those who have commented on it, and if they had a right to comment when they clearly hadn't read nearly as much as me, then I felt I had a right too; the blog owners didn't seem to mind, (up to a point), or they wouldn't have approved MY comments; although I didn't realize that they would then use ME to lie about Douglas. I can't see how I could be closely connected; to be honest I'm not sure what you're implying there. I'm clearly not a writer, and I wouldn't say I'm a fan of Douglas's writing either, or any other writer for that matter; my bookshelves contain no fiction at all, just reference books and bio's. We live 100s of miles apart so we can't be work colleagues, and with my academic qualifications, or lack of them, it's unlikely I'd be in Education anyway; except perhaps as a school caretaker. A family connection perhaps? Well I'm too young to be his father and too old to be his son, but I suppose I could be his brother, a 10 year approximate age gap isn't unusual in brothers, in fact I have a younger brother who's nearly 15 years younger than me, but that would mean a 25 year approximate age gap between him and Douglas; possible, but not likely. A distant cousin? Again that's a possibility, but what is more likely, is that I am telling the truth, and I am who I say I am; someone who merely stumbled in on this, showed an interest, and was then dishonestly used, to discredit Douglas further!
"If Douglas is so sure of his ground, he'd shut up about it and get on with his writing, instead of trying his best to justify what he's done with all those posts about ideas? At the moment, he's protesting too much, and only adding weight to the argument against him."
That, you need to direct at Douglas not ME, what I will say is, if it was you that had been wrongly accused of something, is that what you would do; roll over and take the whipping? I don't think so!
"To outsiders the whole thing is just one big joke. The truth is people have very little patience or respect for either Douglas or Doug Cheadle."
Well I'm an outsider, (a genuine outsider), and I don't see this as a big joke, this is the total destruction of a talented writers reputation, on the whim of a just one "well respected" person, who I've noticed happens to be very influential in this community.
If people in this community don't have any respect for the truth, then I think they should all hang their head's in shame. This blog may be titled, "Jane Smith & Doug Cheadle Lie. Why?", but they aren't the only two who have lied.
You may not agree with what Douglas, (and other well respected writers), has done with regards to ideas, but I don't believe he has ever lied to you.
Yes, I've noticed too, that there's very little respect for Douglas with-in this community, but lots of respect for Jane Smith; but I KNOW, she HAS lied to you!
"To quote someone or other it's a pity either of them have to win."
What exactly does Doug Cheadle have to loose? Nothing!
I can't answer for Doug Cheadle, (nor Douglas), but the reason I set up this blog; as I've already explained on Douglas's blog, is because Doug Cheadle and Jane Smith have lied about ME, both claiming they have evidence which proves that Douglas and I are one and the same, and share the same IP address, (same computer). Realistically, I can't prove to you that these two are lying; it's their word against mine, but hopefully MY blog will show you that their lies against ME don't stack up.
You're expected to believe that Douglas, who has on more than one occasion in the past admitted he knows nothing about computers, set up a second IP address, in order that he could speak on behalf of himself, but as a different person. If it is at all possible, and Douglas was able to do it, why did he even bother, why didn't he just set up this, supposedly, fake blog account; it's easy enough to do, and anyone can set up a fake blog account, (eg. Doug Cheadle), you don't need two IP addresses to do it. IP addresses have rarely ever been mentioned in this community, until I turned up on the scene, are you to believe that Douglas had the foresight to know IP addresses would become an issue here, is that why he set up a second IP address? Douglas is a real person not a character from an Agatha Christie novel.
You're then expected to believe that having gone to all the trouble of setting up a second IP address, (if that's possible), Douglas then leaves comments from it using his own name!
After his IP scam is supposedly rumbled, he then, supposedly, leaves comments 'anonymously' on the SAME blogs, and uses the SAME, supposedly, fake IP address; as if he thought they wouldn't notice!
Jane Smith and Doug Cheadle want you to believe I'm a fictional character created by Douglas, the mastermind who supposedly went to all the trouble of creating an IP address for his fictional character, but couldn't be arsed creating a simple blogging history for him too. And what of the character he has supposedly created, ME; well he's not a writer, so he knows nothing about writing or the processes involved; he claims he doesn't have an o'level to his name, so he can't then reveal himself as a well-read professional person, like a lawyer, Doctor, or Professor. I think you would have to agree, I'M not one of Douglas's best ideas for a fictional character, surely he would have created someone of more use to him in his campaign, someone at least believable to you all?
"Why should anyone be expected to believe that you and Doug Cheadle are disinterested parties rather than being closely connected to this case?"
I wouldn't say I was 'disinterested' I was obviously interested enough to read reams and reams of blogs and comments. I would say I've probably read more on this subject than 95% of those who have commented on it, and if they had a right to comment when they clearly hadn't read nearly as much as me, then I felt I had a right too; the blog owners didn't seem to mind, (up to a point), or they wouldn't have approved MY comments; although I didn't realize that they would then use ME to lie about Douglas. I can't see how I could be closely connected; to be honest I'm not sure what you're implying there. I'm clearly not a writer, and I wouldn't say I'm a fan of Douglas's writing either, or any other writer for that matter; my bookshelves contain no fiction at all, just reference books and bio's. We live 100s of miles apart so we can't be work colleagues, and with my academic qualifications, or lack of them, it's unlikely I'd be in Education anyway; except perhaps as a school caretaker. A family connection perhaps? Well I'm too young to be his father and too old to be his son, but I suppose I could be his brother, a 10 year approximate age gap isn't unusual in brothers, in fact I have a younger brother who's nearly 15 years younger than me, but that would mean a 25 year approximate age gap between him and Douglas; possible, but not likely. A distant cousin? Again that's a possibility, but what is more likely, is that I am telling the truth, and I am who I say I am; someone who merely stumbled in on this, showed an interest, and was then dishonestly used, to discredit Douglas further!
"If Douglas is so sure of his ground, he'd shut up about it and get on with his writing, instead of trying his best to justify what he's done with all those posts about ideas? At the moment, he's protesting too much, and only adding weight to the argument against him."
That, you need to direct at Douglas not ME, what I will say is, if it was you that had been wrongly accused of something, is that what you would do; roll over and take the whipping? I don't think so!
"To outsiders the whole thing is just one big joke. The truth is people have very little patience or respect for either Douglas or Doug Cheadle."
Well I'm an outsider, (a genuine outsider), and I don't see this as a big joke, this is the total destruction of a talented writers reputation, on the whim of a just one "well respected" person, who I've noticed happens to be very influential in this community.
If people in this community don't have any respect for the truth, then I think they should all hang their head's in shame. This blog may be titled, "Jane Smith & Doug Cheadle Lie. Why?", but they aren't the only two who have lied.
You may not agree with what Douglas, (and other well respected writers), has done with regards to ideas, but I don't believe he has ever lied to you.
Yes, I've noticed too, that there's very little respect for Douglas with-in this community, but lots of respect for Jane Smith; but I KNOW, she HAS lied to you!
"To quote someone or other it's a pity either of them have to win."
What exactly does Doug Cheadle have to loose? Nothing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
