My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Easongate: Is There Any Good Coming Out Of All Of This? | Main | Some Quick Thoughts »

February 13, 2005



Nice job. Good things happen when good people do good things.


Thoughtfully well stated. Institutions that cannot, or will not, see themselves for what they are will have a rough time in this new information age. If based on solid foundations, they are capable of self-correction. If not on solid ground, they must be torn down and rebuilt. On better ground, we hope. CNN needs to adopt a new slogan. I suggest, "Live accurate or die."


You are unnerved by what happened, and you must ask if justice was served? The defense was spin, chaff, doublespeak...? And now, because a mere mortal man in a position of responsibility who may have chosen his words poorly, decides to do what he believes is the honorable thing and deprive the mob of a lynching on its own terms--you have the audacity to act chastened because your match lit a fire that burned, like all wildfires do, out of control and consuming all in its path without regard?
Yes, let us bleat on for the tape, the tape! Surely it will solve all. But the point was that this was a conversation never intended for the public's consumption, beyond the invited attendees. The point was to have an open discussion without fear of retribution. But off-the record discussions are the first enemy of living in a free society and must be eliminated by the "anything you say can and will be used against you" rule, turning any opinion into a crime against the state.
While your self-examination and reflection are to be appreciated and perhaps lauded, to put it in the language of the farm, "that horse has left the barn."
The smell of this half-century's Red Scare and Joe McCarthy are strong in the air, though now its about liberals and the left as those who must be "exposed". And of course anyone working in the mainstream media, save those in the employ of Murdoch, must be liberals and lefties, and are out to take over our nation and stamp out conservatives and their "family" values.
Doesn't it seem that we are destined to repeat a dark chapter in this nation's history, though this time it will happen at a speed of the 'net and that will truly be like a lightning strike. Many will be burned and the masses will wonder how it all got started. Rest assured, there will be many who will recite the weak refrain, "I was just trying to do the right thing."


To KV -

McCarthyism does not apply here, and the point was not that this was an "a conversation never intended for the public's consumption, beyond the invited attendees".

In front of hundreds of the world's leaders? On tape, in a room where broadcasting seemed to be the expectation? When the World Economic Forum hails the value of "transparency" of governance, so that the elite can not hide behind obscure policies? In an anti-U.S. atmosphere? Eason Jordan lit the match, not me.

Eason is/was one of the most powerful men in the news world, with every capability to bring support, evidence, and weight to his orginal words, which he said with the conviction of a global authority, evading and spinning when he realized that he was being called on his own words. He had nothing real to back it up.

McCarthyism is not applicable here - this really should be seen as the end of powerful media figures twisting the news as they see fit, pandering to a regional audience, feeding that audience what they want to hear. News is seen as a marketed product, but truthful information can not, and should not be shaped. This is the democratization of the news - the loosening of control from a powerful, commercially focused few.




All I can say is Wow! I have followed this from the beginning except without the benefit of reading your original post until today. My observation of this as well as Rathergate, sitting on the sidelines reading everything I can, is that at least among the well-known bloggers, it was handled with their usual concern and professionalism. I was hoping that the tape would be released (and maybe it eventually will be) to bring this out of the closet and make it the issue it really ought to be. I don't feel the blogosphere has behaved badly or like rampaging Huns. They have been in search of the truth and honesty in our media, on and off the record.

From your original post, it appears that Jordan did pander to his audience in a really despicable way. He is now the fall guy for CNN which has consistently lost viewers for years because no on trusts them to be honest any longer. Their bias pretty much runs the show. Unless you really hate Bush, Republicans in general and anything conservative, you're satisfied with what they dish out.

The number of people growing more disgusted with this big media anti-U.S. bias seems to be increasing. I'm very grateful for all vigilant bloggers like yourself who work sometimes against the tide to keep us informed. I can't possibly be happy with someone who says what Jordan did before that audience without substantiation---and I suspect there isn't any. It was less than a cheap shot. CNN may have forced his resignation in an attempt to quiet this issue, but they haven't fixed the very serious problem they have as a major U.S. news outlet. The release of that tape would probably cause them further damage, but it will perhaps enable a wider audience to understand how grave big media's misuse of its power has become.


Not McCarthyism? Please. Your response reveals your own agenda, the desire to "end powerful news figures, twisting the news as they see fit.." Did Jordan make his statement in a CNN report? Is there evidence that he shaped CNN coverage in some way to support the charge? No--in fact you and others cite the lack of such reportage as further proof of the man's bias. (This would be falling into the "you can't have it both ways camp.") And to say that his statement was made "with the conviction of a global authority" assigns to the man the weight of the institution he was employed by, and again seems like justification of your own position. In some circles they would call that classic spin.

Clearly you understand that a camera and a tape do not make anything "public domain", per se. To use a phrase like "in a room where broadcasting seemed to be the expectation" seems like a special kind of justifying spin in its own right. This was not the U.N. or a G-7 summit. How many people have never even heard of the WEF? This was no address to the general public, no one got in without being invited, and if you consider Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd to be "world leaders", then heaven help us all.

Jordan made a broad, off-the-cuff statement that he almost immediately "tried to walk away from" (David Gergen's words). Fascinating that no one has challenged the rest of what he said about the Iraqi insurgents targeting journalist, isn't it?

Eason Jordan was far from "one of the most powerful men in the news world." He was a senior exec. at a news organization that doesn't hide behind labels of being "fair and balanced" while openly pushing opinion as news, under a particular political agenda. CNN's crime (in the eyes of some) is that its sometimes more "international" in its scope and view than other US-based news organizations. We can thank or blame founder Ted Turner for that, for better or worse.

Just so we're clear, I will vigorously defend your right to write, post or say anything you wish. But just because you write, post or say something doesn't make it true or even subversive. And upon further reflection--you are correct in saying that you didn't light the match here. No, you just yelled "fire" when you saw the match. What followed was classic McCarthyism in the rush to crucify the man and the "left-wing" network he worked for.

Not McCarthyism, you say? What would McCarthyism be defined as then? "It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security."- Harry S. Truman, Nov. 1953

Jon Garfunkel

Rony-- I read through your posts and feel that you did the honorable thing throughout. I had ignored much of this, mostly because of the right-wing noise driving the issue. Now I realize that I ought to have played a role-- I wish I had known about Zed's post on February 3rd and forwarded it along to my Congressman at that time. Well, I did get to it now.

Jon Garfunkel

My response to the whole incident, and why I didn't, but should have played a larger role, here:


"We must work very hard to establish moral, ethical, and human principles into the mindset of bloggers,"

"and now is the time to collectively build a conscience to a very powerful, disruptive technology."


"I read the news today oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph.
He blew his mind out in a car"

How moral is it to delight in someone else's troubles?

How moral is it to take "off the record" remarks and spread them all over the place?

How open minded is it to not consider that the original statement may have some basis in fact--- especially since he is working for an organization that had some staff killed in Iraq (by the resistance, I believe)?

How moral is it not to join with other decent human beings and question why the Palestine Hotel was shelled, and why al Jazeera was bombed in 2003? What about the reporter on Haifa Street on 9/12/04 from al Arabiya, who was shot on air with a rocket from a US Gunship? How come you are not asking for these incidents to be investigated?

Why don't you go to Iraq and investigate this yourself?

Jon Garfunkel

Susan-- I will withhold judgment on whether Rony was right in re-posting these remarks that were supposed to be "off the record." Independently, Bret Stephens of the WSJ was about to break the story as well.

I have read through Rony's posts on the subject. I think he's carried himself quite well-- much better than the wingers on easongate and elsewhere. In fact, in his post to the forumblog on the 8th after he got back in the US, he gave a link to Zed Pobre's research into the number of journalists killed by US soldiers (which was based on the data from the Committee to Protect Journalists).

Jack Lazerknob

Dear Meister FiXdaWelt

Davos in Switzerland? I'm confused. Didn't Davos die in episode 343? I know that some fans have argued that Mecha-Davos from episode 477 is in effect a cyborg clone of Davos, but according to the third edition of The Ion Wars technical manual the tissue taken from the original Davos was only used to obtain a cellular memory imprint that was used to create Mecha-Davos's neural net. So, in reality, Mecha-Davos is not a clone of the original Davos, though I'm still not sure how Mecha-Davos's human parts (his left arm and right hand) were created. Presumably they are regenerated or surving pieces from the original Davos, though I'm not certain of this. In any event, this wouldn't make Mecha-Davos a clone of Davos, per se, but rather a Frankenstein-like hybrid created from some of his body parts coupled with a copy of his neural net. There is a big difference, you know. Also, there's a lot to be said for the argument that episodes 473-479 were part of Commander Zataran's dream sequence. So, I'm not sure whether or not Davos is alive or dead, but it's highly unlikely that's he's in Switzerland. You Can't Eat a Donut Hole, Jack Lazerknob

Real McCarthyism

The real McCarthyism was perpetrated by a man who accused others of murder without evidence.

All the bloggers did was look that man in the eye and ask the question which within itself provides the answer: "Have you, at long last, no sense of decency?"

There is McCarthyism here, indeed, but of an unsustainable kind in the age of the internet ... and the blog.


KV: Where do you get off lecturing Rony on what Jordan said at the meeting?

"Jordan made a broad, off-the-cuff statement that he almost immediately 'tried to walk away from' (David Gergen's words)"

What about Rony's words? Jordan kept going on and on about the subject. It was "off-the-cuff" only in the sense that it wasn't supported by any evidence whatsoever. You bet it was off the cuff. But don't infer from Gergen's comments that the statement was short in either duration or import.

"Eason Jordan was far from 'one of the most powerful men in the news world.'": Bull. How many other news opinion makers were speaking to the crowd at WEF?

And the statement "--- openly pushes opinion as news, under a particular political agenda" can be filled in with the following acronyms: ABC, CBS, [MS]NBC, FOX, PBS, BBC, CBC, NYT, LAT, the AJC, and many more... not to mention Al-Jazeera. The only ones not hiding behind any illusions, as far as I can tell, is FOX, who--like Le Monde, Le Figaro (French) and The Guardian (British)--is right out in front with their bias, and hiding behind nothing. (The "fair and balanced" statement is a deliberate koan that you don't seem to have understood.) So what's your point?

"Fascinating that no one has challenged the rest of what he said about the Iraqi insurgents targeting journalist [sic], isn't it?"

The insurgents haven't made it a secret. They're proud of it, as they are proud of targeting all foreigners. They've said so on the record. What's especially curious or fascinating about it?

The only valid point in your entire comment, AFAICT, is that the phrase "in a room where broadcasting seemed to be the expectation" may be wishful thinking. But so what if broadcasting was *not* the expectation? In fact it makes what Jordan said more problematic, not less so. (Being "off the record" is definitely not an excuse to slander someone without the opportunity for them to rebut the charges on the spot.)

"No, you just yelled 'fire' when you saw the match": No, he asked Jordan if he was intending to start a fire. There's a difference. The 500-lb. gorilla you don't acknoweldge is the teeming mass of Arab journalists ready to pounce on the story from an "international perspective" the minute the meeting let out.

"What followed was classic McCarthyism in the rush to crucify the man and the 'left-wing' network he worked for": You seem to forget that this battle was about fact, not opinion. Witch-hunts are done over beliefs. This was about evidence. Not exactly "classic McCarthyism", is it?

The damage Jordan caused was already done before Rony asked him about it. The Arab journalists at the meeting had already gotten what they wanted. By that fact alone Jordan was a guilty man. His only exoneration would have come from a review of the evidence which could have proved him right. Which, by the way, only Rony attempted to elicit.


Susan: Are you *trying* to misunderstand Rony? The quote "I just had to laugh" is about serendipity, not schadenfreude. Please.

And considering what Jordan said (and then did), questioning Rony's morality--or judgment--is a bit much. If he had been the bull in the china shop, I'd agree. But the china shop of U.S. integrity had already been destroyed by Jordan. (In the eyes of the Arab journalists at the meeting Jordan was a trusted source, and it looked as if they might run with the "story", albeit from a different angle.) Would you rather have had that?

Rony was protecting all of us by identifying the bull. (In more ways than one.) I'd question anyone implying Jordan got anything other than due consideration and fair treatment from him.

"How open minded is it to not consider that the original statement may have some basis in fact": Now you're just being mean. Of course the stories might be true; Rony (and the rest of us who are not part of the vast right-wing conspiracy) want the truth to come out, and he has said so consistently. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

"How moral is it not to join with other decent human beings and question why the Palestine Hotel was shelled, and why al Jazeera was bombed in 2003?"

You are aware, aren't you, that during the war, after weeks of successful targeting of Saddam's Iraqi TV (propaganda broadcasts), rogue transmissions kept cropping up inside Baghdad; that U.S. forces could never seem to hit it; and that it didn't go fully dark until the same day/hour/minute that the Al-Jazeera's beachhead in Baghdad was hit.

Coincidence? No clue. I'm not implying that I know anything specific, because I don't, but do I trust Eason Jordan to get to the bottom of a story like this either?

Not since his 2003 NY Times piece admitting his 10-year-long culpability over [mis]reporting Iraqi government propaganda as "news" from his Baghdad "bureau".

The Palestine Hotel incident is another matter. It ought to be investigated to the fullest extent possible.

Off the Record

There are many themes swirling around the “Easongate” vortex, but one that never seems to register with you is this : In the world of public speaking, an “off the record” discussion is supposed to be off the record. Private group discussions give the speakers and attendees of those discussions, who are in some cases very prominent and public figures, a greater freedom to express their personal views, however right or wrong they may be, without the fear that they will be quoted directly. There is a long standing tradition of “off the record” discussions in the academic world, and it is the intent of these discussions to be provocative, speculative, and controversial, in a way that official on the record discussions cannot be. Off the record discussions allow individuals to speak freely, sometimes brazenly, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes wisely, and sometimes foolishly, without the fear of penalty and reprisal normally associated with attack dog press coverage.

Whether you believe it or not off the record discussions foster and encourage free speech in a world that is all too often dominated by soundbite analysis and crucifixion journalism. Public free speech and personal privacy are not polar opposites, they are complementary aspects of human freedom, and there are many instances when private discussion is the only way to guarantee free speech. Case in point, secret ballots, attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient confidentiality, church confessionals, and more recently the fights over workplace privacy, anonymous web surfing, and peer to peer file sharing. In the same way, didn’t Mr. Jordan have the right to show up at this meeting in Davos, in plainclothes, and shoot off his big mouth without his rant immediately popping up in a plethora of online scandal sheets (let’s not forget there’s a reason why Matt Drudge dresses like Walter Winchell)?

At the end of the day it’s not relevant whether or not you quoted Jordan properly or completely, or whether or not Jordan is an idiot or a propagandist, but whether or not you should have quoted him at all. It doesn’t matter that an audiotape or a videotape of the meeting was made, because the entire discussion was conducted under the good faith assumption that everyone in attendance would respect the privacy of the speakers and attendees and not quote them directly. You should understand and appreciate the fact that not all discussions held in public are public discussions

Let’s face it, you were the first to break this story, because you were the first to break the rules. You weren’t authorized to quote anyone at the meeting directly, but you did so anyhow. You made subjective characterizations of the comments and reactions of Jordan, Frank, Dodd, Gergen, as well as a number of anecdotal “Arab journalists”, all in violation of the house rules. I don’t even think that your listing of those in attendance was particularly ethical. Would you like a website to list all of the meetings that you go to, all of the places that you visit, all of the books and magazines that you buy, all of the videos that you rent, all of the clubs and organizations that you belong to? So, were you the lone voice of reason at Davos? Were the other journalists at this meeting asleep at the wheel? Were all of the public officials in attendance too mesmerized by Eason Jordan’s rhetoric to comment? No, it’s more likely that they didn’t report the story because they felt obliged to follow the rules of the meeting.

This is about free speech, right? So, let’s talk about free speech. Jordan’s comments posed no immediate threat to anyone. He didn’t shout fire in a crowded room. He didn’t incite the crowd to riot. He wasn’t plotting against the U.S. government. All he did was express his personal opinions, however warped and baseless they may have been. He argued his point, you argued your point, and that should have been the end of it. You said that he was representing CNN, but he wasn’t, no more than you were representing your company or family or associates. This wasn’t a press conference. Jordan didn’t broadcast these allegations on CNN, and he wasn’t representing CNN in any official capacity. He was just a high profile individual rambling at an off the record panel discussion. You said that you were shocked at how inflammatory, irresponsible, and misleading Jordan’s comments were, and that somehow he was misrepresenting America to the head of the BBC, the Minister of Information of Afghanistan, the Arab and European journalists in attendance, and the world at large? If that’s so, how many journalists from Britain, Europe, and the Middle East picked up the story and ran it as true? How many of them quoted Jordan’s off the record accusations? How many of them cited Jordan’s allegations in their papers, magazines, reports, and blogs? How often do his comments appear in their political propaganda? It seems to me that all of the Easongate Google hits point back to you and your ilk, and not the dreaded European and Arabic press.

Harvard President Larry Summers is currently under fire for his comments regarding the contribution, or lack of contribution, of women to the fields of math and science, that he made at an off the record panel discussion. Should the leftie wing of the blogosphere add his scalp to their collection as well? Where will this end? Are phone conversations public record? What about emails? Wiretaps? Hidden cameras? What about good old fashion search and seizure? All in the name of truth and accountability, right?

Off the record discussion are a refuge from the PC police, and without them academics and public officials will never again be able to seriously discuss matters of politics, religion, race, gender, or any of the other hot button issues of our day. This gotcha approach to blog reporting will not generate more public debate and discussion, it will lead to less, and eventually all that will remain of public speech will be the guarded, contrived, monolithic groupthink of Orwell that you purportedly dread.

I’d rather know what public officials really believe, regardless of how crazy it may be, than to have to wonder what lurks behind their public facades, even if it means granting them immunity from media prosecution. Off the record discussions are just as much a search for the truth as a sensational front page story. Free speech is free speech. It doesn’t have to meet your standards of “accountability” and “transparency”. It can be as public or private, as subtle or provocative as it damn well chooses. Free speech doesn’t have to answer to you and your yelping blogdogs.

Off the Record (of course)


Thanks OTR - it's good to see your comments.

>> There are many themes swirling around the “Easongate” vortex, but one that never seems to register with you is this : In the world of public speaking, an “off the record” discussion is supposed to be off the record. <<

Huh? Here's Bret Stephens from the WSJ:

HH: Now Bret, first question about what happened in Davos. I thought some people said it was off the record. Was that your understanding?

BS: No. That's something that's always been strange to me. My understanding is that the meeting was on the record. There was some notice put out by World Economic Forum organizers saying that meetings that took place in either the main conference hall or this room called the Sonata room were on the record. And that's obviously why I reported it, and furnished quotes. I could have been under the wrong impression there, and if so, then I erred. But I thought this was fair game. That's why I reported the story.

So: according to the WEF and at least one source, the Sonata meetings were [initially] explicitly NOT "off the record." And any "implicit" consensus among participants that would have overridden this (perhaps dictated by group cohesiveness or a collegial atmosphere -- the kind that Larry Summers would have expected at Harvard for example) didn't exist (in this mix of American congressmen and anti-American journalists).

The point I'm making is not that you are right or wrong per se, but that your *sanctimony* on the issue is not warranted.

It reminds me of a phrase: "He has a point, it just doesn't apply in this case."


I have no idea why all the liberal backlash has been so vitrolic over the resignation of Eason Jordan.

It seems Rony that suddenly you have had an usual change of heart about how you viewed Eason's've gone from being outraged at his remarks to NOW calling bloggers fanatical angry lynch mobs without moral principals!!

This is a great way to deflect from the reality of the situation!

Anyone reading Bernard Goldbergs two books "BIAS" and "ARROGANCE" should know that liberal bias in the MSM is a fact of life, and that it is through that distorted lens of liberal bias, that "facts" are presented.


Eason's remarks not only reflect his personal liberal bias- but the networks' agenda aimed at undermining Pres. Bush and the credibility of both the Afghani and the Iraqi elections, the war on terror, the many successes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the spread of democracy and freedom, and at denying the highest standards to which over 99% of the 300000 troups operate within as part of their day to day credo; so it should come as no surprise that those of us who know the truth now demand that journalists and editors be held accountable for their words and actions.

In the Guardian in November of 04 - Eason Jordan made the same comments as he made at Davos and its become clear to many of us that he has enjoyed slandering the military for a long time now. Eason's stupidity finally came back to bite him the ass...and now you want to blame bloggers for his demise?

How about laying the blame where it belongs...WITH HIM...or perhaps laying the blame with yourself Rony, after all you started this when you blogged the story...and therefore in my are deserving of the blame and are equally culpable in his demise.

So like Pontius Pilate - pleae do not wipe your hands of this affair!

Eason Jordan's comments strongly implied that the military deliberately and willfully, with full knowledge and intent, targeted and murdered reporters, and have engaged in a massive cover up of these actions.
That is a reprehensible accusation to make and is complete baseless!
Eason knows that...which is why he tried skate around his comment when YOU, Rony, called him on it!

And let me assure everyone that if Eason had said that Jews or Blacks deliberately targeted reporters and killed bet that everyone in those two communities, led by the ACLU and the Jewish Defense league, would have "lynched" Eason; demanding his resignation immediately under the threat of defamation lawsuits.The fact that he accused the Military of such actions does not exonorate him!

I see nothing wrong, or indicative of a "hate mob", in what bloggers did pursuing this story, and asking Eason to come clean, to own up and offer irrefutable proof of what he said at Davos and then to offer up proof to substantiate his allegations.

Its appalling to me that liberal Americans will allow terrorists, who are hell bent on killing Americans and destroying American values, the SAME legal protections that all law abiding Americans are entitled too; but when outraged bloggers demand an investigation into what Eason said and demand that he substantiate his accusations with proof, the MSM and liberals and now even YOU Rony describe us "an angry lynch mob,without moral principals in our mindset, and that we had no justification for what we did!!

WTF did we do that some claim we had no justification in doing?
Demand the truth?
Demand to hear tapes so that we can KNOW unequivocably what was said? Demand that Eason and ANYONE else who makes these baseless accusations sustantiate them with proof?
THIS is what YOU feel we did that was wrong and makes us a lynch mob, or rampaging huns?

You blogged his comments, creating awareness in the community, and in effect, you ignited the blog firestorm you now condemn, and in a hypocritical and condescending manner you say "We must work very hard to establish moral, ethical, and human principles into the mindset of bloggers" How dare you? Where do YOU get off on questioning the principals of OUR mindset? Do you not consider YOURSELF a blogger?? Look at your own mindset..before you pass judgement on mine, and my fellow bloggers!

We bloggers are the ones with the moral ethical and human prinicpals, unlike Eason Jordan who suppressed the atrocities of Saddams regime in order to satisfy business concerns!

is it possible that your hypocrisy has arise out of feeling guilty about the much deserved price that Eason paid because you started the firestorm?

Did we demand his resignation?
We simply asked that the tapes be made public to acertain the truth (rather than simply take YOUR word for it Romy - we asked to HEAR the tapes so we could determine whether YOU had misled us or YOU had misinterpreted what happened, and to hear for ourselves exactly what Eason had said) and we asked that Eason be held accountable for his comments by providing UNEQUIVICABLE PROOF to support his allegations.
Proof YOU admit he clearly doesnt have!!

The fact that Eason resigned or was asked to resign, without even attempting to offer up proof of his innocence and has yet to offer proof to support his allegations is NOT the fault of the bloggers,but rather the RESULT of Eason's own biased incompetent actions, misleading allegations, and baseless accusations.


Dear Huntress -


A simple point: many bloggers took the high road, and tried to do the right thing. Some acted like a lynch mob. I do consider myself a blogger, in the blog world, not out of it or above it.

It is a messy thing when the masses are empowered. Not just one person, but many. We should all try to strive for the high ground, if possible. Many did, but not all.

Free speech and empowerment do not always mean equal justice and fairness, and in revolutions the more quiet search for truth can sometimes be lost. The act of revolution is not moral or ethical. It's just widescale change. It is not inherently good or evil. The blogger revolution puts on a wide public display many good and heartfelt thoughts combined with much dirt and grime. It's all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Much more is sure to come.

I hope that this makes sense.



газета мир карелии

зарегестрироваться одноклассники ru

seks mamba отзывы

вконтакте скачать

одноклассники точка ру

тенденции в мире

dpkjv вконтакте

однокласники україна регистрация

мобильный mail ru

аватар на вконтакте

одноклассники знакомство

http vkontakte ru app1804162

мамба змея

odnoklassniki ukraina sayt

odnoklassniki гф

знакомства майл ру

одноклассники регистрация

стикеры бесплатно на майл ру май мир вконтакте миша игра mamba купить мир odnoklassniki ru с днем рождения вконтакте ольга http odnoklassniki ru games kolhozmobi http funlove ru odnoklassniki html mamba la скачать

The comments to this entry are closed.