The Stroumboulopouli

The Stroumboulopouli

The place to get the latest news on what’s coming up on #Gtonight. Find out what Canada’s boyfriend is up to. Share stories, pictures, favourite tv and radio episodes.

CBC TV & Radio shows plus HNIC

His work with Artists for Peace and Justice

UN Ambassadorship for The World Food Programme

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Who's on The Hour from the 12 to the 16th

Is the strombo show live?
This week The Hour talks to 4 Prime Ministers

Monday on The Hour
The right Honourable Joe Clark is the first of four in four night talking to George.

Stephan Gandhi Jones is Reverend Jim Jones' son and talks about his father.

Tuesday on
The right Honourable Kim Campbell, first female Canadian Prime Minister.

Richard Branson offers 25 million dollars find out more.

The right Honourable Brian Mulroney you know Ben's dad. Brian says it like he sees it.

The one and only Ron Jeremy if you have ever watched any kind of porn from the 70ties and 80ties well then you know. He now has a myspace and an autobiography...

The right Honourable Paul Martin. Our most recent Prime Minister.

Bob Lefsetz (The Lefsetz letter) talks about the music business.

The best of the above.
In other Hour related news

Jian Ghomeshi is in Toronto Life this issue

This part has nothing to do with The Hour
Bit of trivia for you from The Book of Useless Information.

It's physically impossible for pigs to look up at the sky.
Scientists say that pigs, unlike all other domestic animals, arrive at solutions by thinking them through. Pigs can be - and have been - taught to accomplish almost any feat a dog can master ('cept looking at the sky) and usually in a shorter period of time.


Sadie said...

I just watched the highlight reel from season two. I wish they could back to that format, it was a much better show. George wasn't so sucky to his guests, he actually challenged them on stuff and there was more news than entertainment. The audience doesn't seem to add anything to the show, half the time they don't even answer George's questions until they're prompted.

All filler and no killer. Too bad, it used to be awesome.

Becky said...

Couldn't agree with you more... too bad I posted my rant on the last post, it would have gone well here :P

J said...

Sadle, Becky...

I have been saying this for months... MONTHS!!!!!!

I want Season Two back in a bad way... It was so much better... I probably wouldn't have tuned in to Season Three if I had just started watching in Season Three....
*sigh* no one seems to listen though... The audience is killing George...KILLING HIM...And the Hour...

Barbara said...

There was nothing that took away from the interview George did with Stephan Jones... Or Joe Clark for that matter.

I loved season two, no question.
I am enjoying season three.
I think the audience enjoys the one on one with George. Like you all did when You met him... It's an added dimension. One bonus I got when I moved to Toronto was being part of that audience. It one more attraction this city has for me.
If you want The Hour to come back to your city to see you, write The Show...

Anonymous said...

Sadly, I have begun to feel more alienated from the show over the last few months as I think it has lost some of the integrity it held in past seasons. Does the show really need the in-house audience as a vehicle for a means of expression? As a result, the pacing or flow of the show has been compromised.

Although I think George is good at what he does best - being engaging - I took the show more seriously the first two seasons.

On a brighter note, I enjoyed the interview with Stephan Jones tonight and listening to his perspective. What incredible torment he must have gone through.


Alia said...

Seriously, talk about off topic. Obviously a highlight reel is only the good stuff (like the interview with Al Gore isn't half as badass as it seemed on the reel). I think you guys take this show a little too seriously, I mean I understand if you liked season 2 better but no need to rant about it on his blog. Plus I love the live audience, I think it adds well to the show.

Anyway what I meant to say was I can't wait for all the PM's that'll be interesting especially since no one really knows Clark or Campbell. Oh and pigs are also the closest to humans with skin and organs too. Love the useless info! =D

Barbara said...

Thank you Alia thank you Donna.
I love to hear from everyone about how the show makes them feel. Do other shows do the same for you?

Sadie said...

What do you think the audience adds? That interview with Stephan Jones would have been just as good without it. The pre-recorded interviews (except the ones in noisy hotels)are very good without the crowd.

I don't think George has ever been "bad ass", swearing and wearing black doesn't make you hardcore. From what everyone says about him, he's a real sweetheart. I just liked the way he interviewed guests when he wasn't trying so hard to be charming and please the people watching.

Honestly, how many people go to just watch George? How about a live show once in awhile, in different cities, then the legions of admirers can get their Strombo fix and we can still have a great show.

Sorry this is off topic of your post, Barbara. Your doing a great job by the way. I had read Becky's rant on the last post and wanted to share my frustrations too.

Becky said...

Yeah, sorry about the off topic Barb... just wanted to say one thing.
Alia, from the beginning this blog was to express opinions about George and The Hour, negative and positive. It was never meant as a fan site. We're just saying what's on our minds about the show, and that's exactly what this blog is about.

Sadie said...

The interview with Bob Lefsetz last night was really good. That's what's missing from the previous seasons. George called him out and that's the way it should be.

Didn't they promise no "bullshit"? So why does George spend half the show trying so hard to impress the crowd. We get it, he's cute, he's flirty, he's alone at night...can't it just be the way it used to be, about the stories and not the host.

And before anyone gets their back up... I like George, he's beautiful, funny, all that mushy stuff. And I like the show. I just want it to be better.

Anonymous said...

Sadie / Barb - I thought the interview with Bob Lefsetz was a good example of what the format behind The Hour was supposed to deliver in the first place. It was one of the more engrossing interviews with interesting subject matter. I wonder if The Hour would consider devoting a segment once in a while to a single topic - sort of a MacNeil/Lehrer format.
Barb - I can only say I don't discuss too many other TV shows but can say I don't care for Jay Leno's delivery. It turns me right off for sure !! Talk about smug.


Allan said...

Stop bashing The Hour.
It's the greatest show on TV.
And with George as host, the cuteness never ends.
And Ghomeshi is Ghyummy.

Allan said...

Sorry about that last post.
I could hardly recognize where I was for a moment, and can you blame me?
Someone is actually questioning how empty and phony the Hour is/has become.
Maybe there's hope yet.

Remember "moonwalking"?
That's The Hour.
Only those with their noses up George's butt think he's actually going somewhere. The rest of us can clearly see that journalism and integrity are slowly fading away.

The Hour Blog is one thing I will acknowledge as progressive. Now there's a chance to call them on their BS right to their faces.
And the BS is worse than ever.
Check out the incredible kissing up to Brian "Visionary" Mulroney.
Or commending themselves for Canadian content with 4 prime ministers appearing for a few minutes each.
It wouldn't have anything to do with promoting a new upcoming CBC show, would it?

Barbara said...

Ah Allan your back... were you on vacation?
Speaking of vacation I will be off the net for a few days or so as I move from one abode to the next. So don't take it personal.

I think the audience is there to enjoy the live experience not to add to the show... does the Rick Mercer audience add to the show or are they just there for PR... It's a good way to all

I don't mind anyone sharing their opinions about The Hour. It's cool.

I was thinking they should have Bob Lefsetz on a regular... Sadie you have a good point..

be good, I gotta go watch The Hour...

Allan said...

According to the Hour Blog, Barb, you're supposed to be watching the Khandahar comedy special instead.
Apparently, even the staff think it's a better choice. And I agree.

A few nights of Rick Mercer as host of the Hour, and I venture that most people here would wish George stayed on his motorcycle and just kept going.

Becky said...

Rick Mercer as host? That'd be awesome! I've been watching RMR for longer than The Hour... he has some serious talent for making people laugh.

f_keepers said...

Good luck with your move, Barbara!

Sadie said...

If the live audience is there to promote the show, then they should take it across the nation. That would be great.
George was a good host in the first two seasons, I won't take that away from him. And he still does a good job now, it just seems like he spends more and more time trying to make the audience love him/be in love with him than hosting the show.

Allan said...

And way more interested in jazzing up his MySpace page than his own web site.
One place screams "look how popular I am, and what's not to like compared to your life", while the other one could just a easily be titled "dead end for losers" judging by all the effort he puts into it.
If he puts up one more song lyric I'm going to scream.
And it'll be this:
"Hey Mr. Rebel Rebel, Rosie O'Donnel has a blog where she shares her thoughts with the world. She obviously has bigger kahoonas down below than you do!"

Becky said...

How many websites do George and The Hour need? They have the cbc website, the cbc blog,, his myspace, The Hour's facebook, and then different web addresses ( leads you to
Sure they might all be for slightly different purposes, but wouldn't it be a lot easier to keep it down to one or two? is still my homepage, but I gave up going to a long time ago. The song lyrics don't even mean anything! It feels like he just hears a song he likes and randomly copy and pastes lines off of lyrics freak.

Miss A said...

I consider George's use of MySpace to be an inexpensive form of promotion. Remember that hair product commercial from many years ago? How did it go? "I'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends and so on...". Let's face it, the CBC does not have an unlimited amount of money for advertising. How much money was spent on those nice "The Hour" billboards in Toronto? That's great advertising if you live there...but you can't see them if you live in Caledon, now can you?

As for his personal's HIS site. If George elects to post a pictorial of himself wearing orange flannel PJ's and bunny slippers while stuffing his face with potato chips, then that's HIS choice. As I pointed out here previously, no one forces us to visit his website. As for the choice of posting song lyrics,...if that's his thing, then so be it.

And finally...

I'm glad Allan has returned from his posting sabatical...even though I disagree with nearly EVERYTHING he writes, both here and on The Hour's blog!

Allan said...

Mmm ... potato chips.

Allan said...

You equate promoting George with promoting the CBC.
That's a tenuous mental leap.
The MySpace page does promote a product: George's ego.
How is having 50 "friends" in Oregon going to help convince advertisers to support The Hour in Canada.
How does that help to sell more cars in Canada?

If you're trying to tell me that the CBC is behind George's MySpace I'll need to see some credentials.
If anything, the site is more tied in to his radio show.

Advertising serves a necessary purpose, but a million billboards cannot make me laugh at Corner Gas.
And a dozen web pages connected to The Hour or George, can't make a show suck a little less than it did last year.

A MySpace is account is all about personality, even if some companies are using it as a post office box to the world.
Having a web site is more like having a blog, meaning that we assume there's a purpose to it, a mission if you will.
George can do whatever he wants at his own domain, and I can freely comment on what he's doing there. I've checked in on it several times and it appears to be consistent in what George is trying to do there - to have the most lame, pathetic web page ever.

Miss A said...

Allan said: "You equate promoting George with promoting the CBC".

If you check out his MySpace page, there ARE several video bits from The Hour. It's a subtle form of promotion, but it is there. Conversely, I see no references whatsoever to the radio show other than a photograph - something I think he should rectify.

carrie said...

Aside from bitching / defending George and his personal / commercial enterprises, is there any discussion on the show’s actual topics?

Crazy stuff: the infamous KSM “confesses” to 31 terrorist plots - does anyone take this seriously? half the blogosphere thinks it's awesome and teh other half calls bullshit.

Ron jeremy: pornography in Canada. Love it or leave it?

military presents / presence: Canadian military undergoing a drastic change. Is anybody watching?

I'd like to see the topics here cover more than George: he's just a guy in front of the camera. i'm a little sick of discussing his godliness or lack thereof.

Allan said...

George is more than "just a guy" to his fans here.
And there's a fair amount of discussion about all elements of the show and it's content.
You have to expect blogs to be a little looser than you're used to dealing with.
And if you want discussion, try putting forth opinions instead of only glib questions.

Am I being too harsh, carrie?
We can talk about pornography if you really want, but the KSM stuff is all speculation at this point. Matthew Good has an excellent blog on the subject.

But OK, the military.
The CBC shows no imagination in it's coverage of the war.
When you think how easy and useful it would be to do a half hour show each day from Afghanistan, whether by internet or airwaves at 3 in the morning, and realize that the CBC has shown no initiative or innovation in the way it broadcasts about the war in 2007, then you begin to see my frustration with this "national treasure".
We may be bored and even afraid of thinking about the horror of what's going on over there tonight, but we'd prefer that our broadcasters weren't.

Question for you: Aren't all those pictures of George everywhere a form of pornography?

Barbara said...

There is more discussion of the topics on the strombo forum. There is a link on the next post when you click on Karma's name. Please join us in the conversation there.

There are seven different bloggers here who post about The Hour and the topics of The Hour. They all have different styles and approaches. It's up to them to post what they want when they want.

My style of post is who I am.
I feel a kinship with George and I see him as a friend. I am loyal and I have no apologies.

No Allan I don't equate Pictures of George with Pornography...

You do bring up a very interesting idea about the military... why not a show from Kandahar every day... That would work on radio very nicely.

Miss A said...

The pornography/photos of George link is a big leap Allan...I'm not sure where that came from... my opinion, how the show is promoted, directly or indirectly, is relevent content on this blog. Without promotion there are no viewers. No viewers equals no show. The dialogue on this blog would then become non-existent. Visit the forum Barbara was mentioning. There, using a different tagname (apparently I suffer from multiple personality disorder!), I asked a question of the forum's female was regarding their feelings about the Jeremy interview. Check it out!

And Barbara...LOYALTY is one of the greatest virtues one can possess, particularly as society seems to be becoming more fickle. Hope you move went well and you are enjoying your new place!!

Becky said...

I do value loyalty very highly, but at the same time, this is entertainment. George is a personality. Meeting him was an awesome experience, something I certainly won't forget. But when he starts doing work that I don't think is very well done, I'll say it.
Too much loyalty can easily turn into denial. I realized that when I saw the turn the show was taking, and basically started lying to myself about the quality of the content. Finally I realized I should just take a step back and look at it for what it was, a TV show.

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barbara said...

Thank you miss A the move went very well. Just woke up the next morning thinking I have milk and cereal but no bowl to put them and no spoon to eat them with. Details I have since taken care of. Don't you love moving?

I respect that Becky. I have been paying attentions to your concerns. What did you think of the Stephan Jones interview?
what was your least liked moment this week?

carrie said...

sorry guys, I realize I may have come across as a bit of a snark in that last post. I'm not anti-George; I think he's pretty cool as a media personality. I was just looking for something more to sink my teeth into... I think I mistook the meaning of the "What We're About" sidebar.

I wasn't aware of the strombo forum; thanks Barbara.

Ah allan, gnoshing with you is always interesting. I don't think you're being harsh - it's true, my comments were glib, perhaps in an effort to stir up conversation. I've been following this forum though, and I have to say that discussion on the Hour's content is rather limited. However, knowing that the strombo forum exists for such discussion may explain that.

I have to agree with you on the frustrating coverage of the war in Afghanistan. I like the idea of creating a daily / weekly show. I wonder, with the added emphasis on active war-engagement (for lack of a better description) and less emphasis on "peacekeeping", what sort of effect is this going to have on our identity as a country, to ourselves and abroad, if any? I think it's a pretty fundamental shift...

Allan, very interesting comment on George V. Pornography!! LOL Some people didn't like that, eh?
Actually, you have a valid question. The definition of pornography varies depending on context, but basically the word is defined as representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica.
Whereas I do not think of the pics as erotic per se, the whole idea of media and marketing is to sell oneself. George is good looking - and a lot of his pics play on that. So yeah, you can argue that they can be a form of pornography, but again, it's a question of context.

Good question! :)

Allan said...

Interesting balance of confidence and humility there, Carrie, Shows a lot of class.

Be careful over at the Strombo forum. Karma and friends can be pretty intense.
And you have to sign up before you can see the full board, which makes it kind of a private club.

The selling of George and the Hour by the CBC may not go so far as to be obscene, but it strikes me as over-the-top and has an air of desperation.
The current coverage of Canadian troops by our national broadcaster seems very "government approved". When I look at US coverage there's more of a sense that news directors are waking up each day saying "what can we do today that's even better".

What I find lacking in Canada is that there's not enough people saying what they think.

My impression of George is that he strikes me as having a fairly juvenile personality but with an interesting degree of moxie.
I can relate to this.

The Hour itself, is a disappointing scam.

To begin with, George is not suited to carry an intellectual discussion.
Matthew Good is. Jann Arden is.
George, however, is in over his head with anyone across from him who is not a member of Motley Crew.
And that's not really a joke.
Interviews are a large part of the show, but each one is hype that falls flat. It's impossible to avoid that blank expression on George's face as he tries each time to pretend to be interested.
No one is fooled, but his fans are proud of him for trying.

Am I placing too much emphasis on George?
Come on, be honest. Change the title of the show to his name alone and no one would blink.

George and Ben Mulroney are really the same commodity. "Presenters", with no other discernible talent.

The show is razzle-dazzle that never amounts to anything, not even simply being entertaining, and you can't help but think that regular viewers need to get a life. (Unlike those who blog about it ;) .

George will never escape the criticism that he's dumbing down the news. Because it's true.
The only part still open to question is "who's responsible?"

Miss A said...

Oh Allan...I must be fooled, because I think George does have an interest in the people he interviews. Can you give some concrete examples (perhaps from last week) to back up your point?

Allan said...

George is on record as having done many interviews at Much that he was not interested in doing.
The Hour's guests most often call up and ask to be on the show in order to get exposure to a national audience. I think you can be quite sure that no one went out of their way to get Ron Jeremy and Joe Clark into the studio.

carrie said...

hmmm, I might disagree on that one, Allan. I can see a lot of people jumping at the opportunity to bring Ron Jeremy onto the show - if only because he's so "controversial", hence creating buzz and upping the level of attention. There's no such thing as bad press, right?

However, as much as I like to watch GS on the show, I agree: sometimes the interviews are way over his head (or at least he gives that impression). I don't think this is a negative aspect of the show: there are exceedingly few shows on the air that offer such a wide range of topics as The Hour does. Given the assumption that GS's audience is made up of predominantly younger, tech-savvy urbanites, I am inclined to believe that not as many people would be able to follow *each* of the segments with complete interest.
Yet despite George's ability or inability to "look interested" he does have one excellent talent that makes him so watchable: he creates the illusion of friendship between himself and his interviewee - and that leads to a different style of interview than what I'm used to seeing.

I think the coverage of the war in Afghanistan will become more critical once the public's opinion of the war becomes more negative. The American coverage was disappointing in the first few years too, until the American public fell out of love with their government and disenfranchisement with the Rebublicans became the new black.
Despite all the rumours of the CBC tanking, I believe the current gov't will continue to support the station, if only for the realization that the CBC can be the mouthpiece of the gov't, with a little pressure. Harper has been very good at adapting American control tactics for himself.

Allan said...

I've always acknowledged his popularity and easy-going confidence, but that doesn't necessarily translate into good journalism, as the Hour attempts to lay claim to.
Larry King and Howard Stern are far superior, and get results. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are also very friendly with guests but have the intellect to challenge and respond.
George usually skirts a difficult or complex statement by quickly moving to another question and simply running out the clock. The result is that we come away with so little insight. Some more information than we had before, it's true, but nothing that couldn't be done just as well by anyone on the staff. In fact, I'll venture that some of the production assistants would do a better job in a few cases.
For some reason, the show has decided at the outset to foster a cult of personality that over-rides actual content or entertainment. It relies so much on the George factor, which becomes quite boring in a fairly short time, because he's neither a comedian nor a journalist. Affable and energetic seem to his key virtues.

No one in the media is going to be foolish enough to turn down any celebrity who offers themselves up for exposure. In truth, broadcasters rely on these people to attract a diverse audience (too diverse in the case of the Hour) and spare themselves from always having to provide new and interesting topics.
Public relations firms have recognized this weakness about the media, whether radio, television or newspapers, and have learned how to control and exploit it as never before.
And virtually all media outlets have chosen to cooperate because it saves them time and money, unconcerned that the power to lead and influence and inform has been given over to the interests of big business.
The Hour plays along just as E Daily or any of the others do. No one asked for Lionel Richie, but no one is going to turn him down either.

Fans of the Hour seem so easily impressed.
The CBC is without vision or integrity, while it spends so much time figuring out how to justify itself in the midst of challenges from all directions.
Rebroadcasting a Newsworld show on the main network instead of creating new programming with a variety of viewpoints has certainly made economic sense. But it's also clearly expedient and timid.
Which is reflected by the Hour itself, also expedient and timid. So pardon me for grumbling when George is referring to his work as "hardcore journalism", when it amounts to little more than having a couple of portable cameras buzzing annoyingly around a hapless individual's head.

Come on, let's be honest. The Best Of show on Fridays is pretty much an overstated title. This show alone demonstrates that this is as good as it gets, and that's nothing to write about.

Your opinions about the war and government are interesting.
National media are duty-bound to wave the flag ahead of telling the truth.
Harper is one more Mulroney, and we'll have to endure his tenure - until George runs for office and becomes Minister of the Hippy Hippy Shake.

carrie said...


Minister of HHS :D

Miss A said...

Allan...Larry King? That's funny. I have watched this man ask a question, receive a response and then ask a follow-up question. Had he been LISTENING to the previous answer, the follow-up question would not have been necessary. What about asking a widower from 9/11 if he misses his wife? That’s a question I would expect from a five year old. Oh…how timely…right now Larry King is interviewing Heather Mills. She wouldn’t be promoting something, now would she?? “Far superior” indeed.

Personally, I like interviews where the subject gets to tell their story and granted questions are part of this process. However, too many questions can ruin the story. So does this mean that George’s appearance of not being “interested” is him actually giving his guest the opportunity to share their experiences? The interview should be all about the guest…not the interviewer!

Brooksie said...

I do have to chime in on Larry King as an example of a superior interviewer. I don't think so.

He will ask a guest a question. The reply will be serious, heart breaking, touching and very personal. His follow up will be about sports or fashion. He clearly seems to be going through the motions in a way no other interviewer I have seen does.

Typical Larry King moment...

LK: So your father died. How did that affect you?

Movie Star: He was the most important person in my life and I hope I make him proud (begins to tear up)

LK: Your next movie is an action comedy. Was it fun to do?

Allan said...

Almost a knock-out with that one-two punch!
Lots of validity to what you say, and even Howard Stern thinks Larry is oblivious to his surroundings.
You would find the weakest part of my argument and pummel away.
I see potential journalism students here, but ixnay on the Georgey being a better interviewer than Mr. King. Unless of course you enjoy being stared at.

Miss A said...

Wow Allan...for a brief moment I thought you were about to capitulate!!! Maybe next time...

Barbara said...

I just don't like larry King... personality is a part of it...

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...

i don't think i have ever seen the words george and hardcore journalism together before.

Allan said...

George made the claim during an interview last fall while speaking with a guest.
I wondered how he defined the term.
It seems to mean that you don't wear a tie.

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...

do you remember what guest? i'm curious because i can't believe i would have missed that line. it's such a weird thing to say, seeing that he is so not a hardcore journalist.

Allan said...

It happened during one of those rare moments when I was actually paying attention to what George was saying,
And he did say "we do hardcore journalism".
If he's forgotten, then I can pull the transcript and the tape.
And if you think I'm set up to do that, then there's an opening for an elf at the North Pole.

Actually, I am, and I can.
But I suspect that even with proof, you'd look for a way to defend your Pillsbury Doughboyfriend.

That clown face avatar and your moniker are pretty frightening.

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...


you have crossed a line there. i do not appreciate, nor do i feel i deserve that "you'd look for a way to defend your Pillsbury Doughboyfriend" comment. do you actual read my comments? a lot of the time, i agree with you. i have been a very vocal critic of 'the hour' this season, and i never, ever delve into the territory of "boyfriend" in regards to the host.

in fact, i believe you have gushed more about him, than i ever have. and i don't think i have ever posted anything defending him.

and at no point did i say i doubted you. i just said it was weird.

i've tried to play honest with you. i don't appreciate such a cheap shot back.

Miss A said... have given me another opportunity to "find the weakest part of (your) argument and pummel away". You just indicated that you don't always pay attention to what George is saying. This statement now puts your credibility in question. How can you fairly critique something/someone you are not paying attention to?

I wonder if I were to poke George in the tummy if he would make that oooohhhhh sound like the REAL doughboy. I'll ponder that one while you formulate your rebuttle :-)!

Allan said...

I guess the line you're referring to must be the one between cheap shot and light-hearted witticism.
Why ask which guest? What could you do with that information?
Why choose to present yourself as a scary clown with reference to the anti-Christ?
I'm sure you're a nice person. In person.
If you've read anything I've said then you must know that I do have a habit of offending and alienating absolutely everyone.
You're making me feel really, really bad. So are we even?

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...

allan, i was curious as to what guest as to know whether or not i saw the interview. i wasn't planning on using the "information" in some mysterious way.

and no, we are not even. among other issues i have with your response, you have responded in what i feel is a personal attack. "I'm sure you're a nice person. In person." which implies i am not a nice person online.

Allan said...

Oh please. How is it a personal attack when you're anonymous?
Stop holding a grudge and have another banana.

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...


there is a difference between anonymous and pseudonymous. just as there is a difference between healthy debate and just plain rude.

668 aka neighbour of the beast said...

ps. i do not feel i am holding a "grudge" against you. i felt you said things to me that needed to be responded to.