Do you trust Meltzer any more?

Mr.Nice Guy

Atari Jaguar

I think he's become too close to his pals in the business. I don't trust him to give an unbiased take on the industry. Also, he's made a mockery of the star rating system.

thebostoncrab

Nopes

I look at it in two ways: there is the matches he reviews, and then there is the journalism.

For matches, I’ll be honest I tend to agree with Meltzer but that’s just because the style of wrestling he enjoys has always been the style that I’ve enjoyed. I grew up on a good diet of old AJPW and NJPW tapes as well as WWF, so if Dave rates a match highly I seek it out. But, that’s also subjective and I think not something you should base your view on his credibility on.

When it comes to news and reporting on wrestling, I honestly think he is a victim of two things; doing it for so long and working in a very over-saturated market. It’s much easier now for Johnny and Joey Boot and Tights to start a podcast or a news website, and a ton of these websites get their detail from Dave, which they won’t credit, and thus it can make people not see the amount of work Meltzer has put into this gig, from his connections to his decades of insight to the business.

He does get things wrong yes, however wrestling plans do change at the drop of a hat, and there isn’t a single journalist in any market that gets it right 100% of the time. If we talk baseball, Meltzers batting average for news is going to be untouchable.

J. Marston

Atari Jaguar

Whatever about his contacts in the industry but the religious reverence paid to his arbitrary match rating system has always confused and more recently fúcking annoyed me.

Reddit in particular is mental with it. Mention not liking, or liking, a wrestler and there will be a handful of his zealots on hand with a database of all that wrestler's 4.25/1.5 star matches which are definitive, unquestionable proof of that wrestlers merit.

Go away and shíte.

ERG89

thebostoncrab wrote: »

He does get things wrong yes, however wrestling plans do change at the drop of a hat, and there isn’t a single journalist in any market that gets it right 100% of the time. If we talk baseball, Meltzers batting average for news is going to be untouchable.

In fairness WWE's booking has been so haphazard the last few years its caught up on them when you look at the lame card for SummerSlam which in the past they would have been building towards since the Spring, another lazy nostalgia show next week on Raw with all your favourite old, old catchphrases & the fact they had to dig up Eric Bischoff from his 20 year old sarcophagus to get buzz in 2019.

He did say Lesnar vs Reigns was the WM 34 main event a long time before that show which some people thought WWE would not be dumb enough to do, which went as well as many expected.

Necro

Atari Jaguar

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think he's become too close to his pals in the business. I don't trust him to give an unbiased take on the industry. Also, he's made a mockery of the star rating system.

Yep, this is exactly the crux of my issue with Meltzer tbh. His fawning over specific promotions and styles has reached parody levels at this point.

showpony1

leggo wrote: »

I’ve known enough about stories I’ve seen him report on to be able to gauge how much he actually understands and doesn’t

what stories are these - related to Irish wrestling?

The White Wolf

Gas that some nobody would try and pull the mark card on Meltzer. Watching too many Kevin Nash and Al Snow shoots.

leggo

showpony1 wrote: »

what stories are these - related to Irish wrestling?

I'll give one example I've spoken about here before: remember he reported that JBL 'caused' Mauro Ranallo's bipolar? I grew up with someone close to me who was bipolar so know a LOT about the condition. If you've even a rudimentary understanding of it, you'll know that the only thing that 'causes' it is a chemical imbalance in the brain, that's literally what it is. The entire point of bipolar is that your mood is often cripplingly affected by your brain just switching from elated to depressed apropos of nothing (sometimes it can be seasonal, sometimes it can switch daily, sometimes completely random) and it's so devastating because nothing can control it. Nothing 'causes' the switch and even medication and constant treatment can be ineffective sometimes. It's just how people are wired and it can ruin lives, it's an awful condition. Meltzer may as well have reported, "JBL bullied Mauro Ranallo and it gave him AIDS." That's how ignorant the story was.

So what can we deduce from this about his standards? Well we know he didn't get that news from the source, i.e. Mauro, because nobody with bipolar would say this. We also know he didn't check it with Mauro before reporting on his suffering of a serious medical condition. We also can deduce that someone who is ignorant of bipolar and had an axe to grind fed him this info and he reported it without even a cursory Google of bipolar, so he can easily be used by lads who feed him absolute waffle to suit an agenda. So not only will he report sensitive info on people within wrestling, he'll report on it wrongly.

Then look at the affect: because Meltzer said it, you had his fanboys who believe every word that comes out of his mouth, and were also equally ignorant of bipolar, accept this narrative unquestioned. This created a mob demanding JBL's head. JBL was a commentator on TV at the time and the backlash was so severe, despite it being complete BS, that he was quietly taken off TV. So even though his info is bad, he has enough of a following who rely on his word that his bad info was able to affect someone's livelihood.

By any reasonable standard, that is gutter journalism on every level.

Itssoeasy

Atari Jaguar

Meltzer like anyone reporting on wrestling is only as good as the info he's getting from his sources within the wrestling companies.

leggo

But if you take the example I gave, a Google search or even basic knowledge of the words he typed would’ve completely changed how he reported the story and the affect that story had. So no, I don’t accept that. It’s making excuses for poor, reckless work and low standards.

Also it’s a choice to report on someone’s medical ailments, he could’ve used discretion and not pointed the eyes of the world at someone suffering with depression. There’s a whole debate in the ‘real’ media about what’s in the public interest and what’s not (the Hulk Hogan story was largely centred on this) and should journalists get away with posting personal info about celebrities for profit or is it scummy? Dave has no qualms about doing this and he’s gotta be held accountable, as do we if we feed that and make it a profitable thing for him to do.

Itssoeasy

Atari Jaguar

Sorry leggo I wasn't referring to your post in my post. I literally just answered the question without looking at your post. Yeah, while JBL is far from a saint I could never understand how they could blame one person on the thing meltzer was saying.

nannerby

Atari Jaguar

Havnt listened to him in at least 5 years and thought then he was full of it,dont know if anything has changed since apart from him being matey with the aew crew but id still have no interest in listening to him.

The White Wolf

nannerby wrote: »

Havnt listened to him in at least 5 years and thought then he was full of it,dont know if anything has changed since apart from him being matey with the aew crew but id still have no interest in listening to him.

Meltzer and Alvarez have not been afraid to be critical of AEW when they've done questionable things so the bias accusation is a non runner.

nannerby

Atari Jaguar

The White Wolf wrote: »

Meltzer and Alvarez have not been afraid to be critical of AEW when they've done questionable things so the bias accusation is a non runner.

I never mentioned any bias at all I gave up listening to him because I thought he was rubbish long before aew came along.

The White Wolf

nannerby wrote: »

I never mentioned any bias at all I gave up listening to him because I thought he was rubbish long before aew came along.

The fact you mentioned AEW as something to hold against him means you are biased.

leggo

These days people just see what they want to see and apply facts that enforce the view they want to have while ignoring ones that disprove it. You get that a lot with Meltzer diehards.

It’s absolute insanity, even here you’ve got a couple of people who are like “Show me one thing he’s ever gotten wrong!” He was completely wrong just this week like: he reported Chris Charlton had been reduced to just translating on NJPW coverage, after this was debunked by the people involved if anything he’s been more of a focal point on commentary since that story. But they just won’t see this stuff and, when confronted, will rant about how he works in a college or something equally random and nothing to do with the point.

nannerby

Atari Jaguar

The White Wolf wrote: »

The fact you mentioned AEW as something to hold against him means you are biased.

Everyone who mentions Melzer nowadays mentions aew ive no bias against aew im delighted they are on the scene.

thebostoncrab

Nopes

leggo wrote: »

I'll give one example I've spoken about here before: remember he reported that JBL 'caused' Mauro Ranallo's bipolar? I grew up with someone close to me who was bipolar so know a LOT about the condition. If you've even a rudimentary understanding of it, you'll know that the only thing that 'causes' it is a chemical imbalance in the brain, that's literally what it is. The entire point of bipolar is that your mood is often cripplingly affected by your brain just switching from elated to depressed apropos of nothing (sometimes it can be seasonal, sometimes it can switch daily, sometimes completely random) and it's so devastating because nothing can control it. Nothing 'causes' the switch and even medication and constant treatment can be ineffective sometimes. It's just how people are wired and it can ruin lives, it's an awful condition. Meltzer may as well have reported, "JBL bullied Mauro Ranallo and it gave him AIDS." That's how ignorant the story was.

So what can we deduce from this about his standards? Well we know he didn't get that news from the source, i.e. Mauro, because nobody with bipolar would say this. We also know he didn't check it with Mauro before reporting on his suffering of a serious medical condition. We also can deduce that someone who is ignorant of bipolar and had an axe to grind fed him this info and he reported it without even a cursory Google of bipolar, so he can easily be used by lads who feed him absolute waffle to suit an agenda. So not only will he report sensitive info on people within wrestling, he'll report on it wrongly.

Then look at the affect: because Meltzer said it, you had his fanboys who believe every word that comes out of his mouth, and were also equally ignorant of bipolar, accept this narrative unquestioned. This created a mob demanding JBL's head. JBL was a commentator on TV at the time and the backlash was so severe, despite it being complete BS, that he was quietly taken off TV. So even though his info is bad, he has enough of a following who rely on his word that his bad info was able to affect someone's livelihood.

By any reasonable standard, that is gutter journalism on every level.

I’ll say before I continue that I am someone with bipolar disorder and have lived with it officially for 12 years, so I’ll admit I may be biased in this discussion, although I’ll do my best to double check my own biases.

Can I ask where Meltzer ever said that JBL “caused” Mauro’s bipolar disorder? I’m not asking for a long explanation or anything here, just where he said specifically that JBL “caused” the condition?

Because that story hit home very hard for me, for one reason being stupidly obvious, but also because of what was actually reported, that JBL added Mauro to a long list of guys he bullied (or “hazed” and I ****ing hate that word in stories like this) and part of his target was his struggles with bipolar. A bi-product if bipolar is paranoia and self doubt, so while JBL didn’t cause the disorder, bullying can worsen the feelings it brings due to the paranoia and self doubt. It can validate your own thoughts and lead you down a very dangerous path. But I’m close to moving away from the point.

What I’m asking for is where did Dave report that JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar? Because all the reports I read from the man never claim this. I also just spent the last few minutes doing a sanity check on reports from that time period and again, nothing from Dave about JBL causing his bipolar.

leggo

Now come on man...are you seriously asking me to backcheck every report, daily report and tweet he made from a specific period several years ago for a specific quote when we can all remember it?

Here's my recollection of it: I'd have no particular axe to grind with the man, and especially wouldn't around then, he'd have given projects I'd have worked on coverage over the years when we'd send it off etc so if anything I'd have appreciated that and defended him more often than not. Then I saw his reporting on that story and, to be honest, that was a turning point because bipolar is something quite close to my heart too and to see it reported in such black and white terms in an effort to whip up a mob against JBL* was a turning point for me. It's such a complex illness, one that shouldn't be revealed publicly without SERIOUS consideration** because of ignorance around it (that I'm sure you have experienced yourself), and if you bothered to understand what you were saying or gave a **** you wouldn't report it in the manner he did. You just wouldn't. And he threw it out there casually like a sensational tabloid story where "This man = good, this man = bad."

Besides, we can all vividly remember it. You remember Meltzer reporting it right? And that it was one of these stories that, like with Roman Reigns right now, he constantly had to go back-and-forth with people on because he took a lot of flack? And do you remember JBL being painted as the bad guy and a pile-on ensuing, to the point he started blocking people en masse? Do you remember Mauro coming out with a video and pretty much saying, "Thanks guys, I appreciate the support, but that's actually not the case"? And that being how Mauro ended up on NXT, while JBL's commentary role was downsized before being taken off TV quietly after it died down?

That alone validates what I'm saying. I get if you like Meltzer and/or don't like JBL you're going to want to see things the way that reflects that, but come on...you know that that outcome alone doesn't reflect the true nature of your condition (and I'm sorry you go through that, I didn't know that, having seen its affects I can only imagine the struggles you've dealt with) or particularly help with dealing with it. And Meltzer is the one who just dropped that bomb and let it all happen, then walked away from it first chance he got. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, think that's the 'responsible' way of handling it all? From a lad who's now making a person's suffering with leukaemia about himself and threatening people who criticise that by giving away their personal info, that he would've gotten through subscriptions, publicly?

*I'd have no particular affinity for JBL either. If anything, his historical behaviour does sound problematic and he likely wasn't built for WWE in this era. But that doesn't excuse false accusations being thrown his way and everyone being okay with it because they just don't like him either. That kind of behaviour and attitude is bullying in itself.

**For example, if it was me, even if the person suffering told me "Tell everyone, I don't care," I'd still be reluctant to reveal it. You don't know the state of mind they're going through at that point and what consequences that could have. I wouldn't want to be the person responsible if they later regretted making that public. But we do know now and we know because of Meltzer, not Mauro, in a story that Mauro himself came out and publicly distanced himself from. That's just the facts of the matter.

thebostoncrab

Nopes

I bring up asking for where you read this simply because it was the case you pointed towards Meltzer leaning more towards a tabloid style, and all I’ve asked is “Where did he actually say that?” because there is a huge difference between reporting “JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar” vs “JBL bullied Mauro in the lead up to his breakdown”. It was a massive story when it broke and it didn’t take more than two minutes to find Meltzer’s original comments on the story, which didn’t focus on his bipolar but more on JBl’s treatment towards the man.

I’ve no issue with someone saying “I don’t rate Meltzer”, no one should “have” to enjoy the writings of the man, but if you are going to invite conversation on why his level of journalism is poor then of course if I’m on the other side of the fence in a conversation I’ll ask “Cool, can you show me where he said what you are claiming, because everything I have here is saying different”. No offense but I won’t change my mind just because you (or anyone, not singling you out) says “I heard him say this” without evidence, for any good debate, not just on the merits of a wrestling journalist.

I’ll happily admit that yes, lately Dave has let his personal biases come into his reporting from time to time, and I’m not a fan of that since I only want to hear that in his podcast, not his news reporting. But that doesn’t take away from taking his new items in higher regard towards being reality vs other journalists, since his sources are far reaching and his batting average surpasses so many others.

leggo

thebostoncrab wrote: »

because there is a huge difference between reporting “JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar” vs “JBL bullied Mauro in the lead up to his breakdown”.

So take that quote alone: do you, as someone who suffers with bipolar, not see a huge issue with the interpretation of the story you’ve outlined right there? You’re actually re-enforcing my point here, just coming out on the other side and agreeing that it’s fair (which is absolutely your right).

That quote alone is misleading and plays on people’s ignorance of bipolar to suggest that JBL was responsible for it, when really it’s two separate stories. People will read that, not understand bipolar, and assume that it was directly triggered by JBL. That’s majorly irresponsible reporting to me, like I genuinely don’t get how people don’t see that. It’s like, hypothetically, saying “This person was disciplined in work the day before they took their life.” The facts may be vaguely correct, but it’s spun in such a way that it comes across as an accusation: we don’t know why that person took their life, we don’t know if the employer was actually responsible and completely right to discipline them, but the story nudges you in a certain way for maximum impact and causes huge damage in doing so. It’s gutter journalism and Meltzer is culpable in this instance.

It just feels like a lot of people wanted JBL’s head and didn’t ask too many questions so assumed this story checked out when it doesn’t even make sense at face value. That’s before you examine the actual facts, which in cases of bullying accusations can be majorly complex and subjective in themselves. We don’t and can’t know enough of the specifics, so we accept the bad info at face value, and that can be massively damaging to innocent parties. Which is why standards matter and stuff like this gets me heated.

thebostoncrab

Nopes

leggo wrote: »

So take that quote alone: do you, as someone who suffers with bipolar, not see a huge issue with the interpretation of the story you’ve outlined right there? You’re actually re-enforcing my point here, just coming out on the other side and agreeing that it’s fair (which is absolutely your right).

That quote alone is misleading and plays on people’s ignorance of bipolar to suggest that JBL was responsible for it, when really it’s two separate stories. People will read that, not understand bipolar, and assume that it was directly triggered by JBL. That’s majorly irresponsible reporting to me, like I genuinely don’t get how people don’t see that. It’s like, hypothetically, saying “This person was disciplined in work the day before they took their life.” The facts may be vaguely correct, but it’s spun in such a way that it comes across as an accusation: we don’t know why that person took their life, we don’t know if the employer was actually responsible and completely right to discipline them, but the story nudges you in a certain way for maximum impact and causes huge damage in doing so. It’s gutter journalism and Meltzer is culpable in this instance.

It just feels like a lot of people wanted JBL’s head and didn’t ask too many questions so assumed this story checked out when it doesn’t even make sense at face value. That’s before you examine the actual facts, which in cases of bullying accusations can be majorly complex and subjective in themselves. We don’t and can’t know enough of the specifics, so we accept the bad info at face value, and that can be massively damaging to innocent parties. Which is why standards matter and stuff like this gets me heated.

I think we are getting away from the point a little bit, but to answer your question honestly: no, I don’t see an issue with reporting that JBL bullied (again, I won’t call it hazing) Mauro on the lead up to his breakdown, because I’d hope it make people aware of the power someone’s actions can have on someone, especially as someone who had moments very similarly lead to moments of mania for myself. Mauro was very vocal and open on his condition, JBL acted as a bully regardless and he 100% should have been called out for being such. I’m not naive enough to say it’ll stop everyone from acting this way towards folks, but I’d hope it made people more aware.

Now, what would have made it poor journalism would had been how you introduced the story “JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar” because that is damaging and putting blame behind a medical condition on someone because then the direct blame is being placed on an individual, rather than what was actually reported which was that the actions of an individual didn’t help with Mauro’s condition and added to the effects it was having on his mental state. That’s not tabloid journalism, that’s stating fact and highlighting a problem within the workplace, which is good journalism is; expose the truth, but keep personal biases out of the story.

Now, on the personal biases I’ll again say that Meltzer is letting this come into his reports lately and I’m not a fan of that, but in this case I think he was more restrained given how hard he had been on JBL (and rightly so) previously.

leggo

I think we’ve just got to agree to disagree on this point. You seem to wanna hammer me to a quote where Meltzer specifically said the sentence “JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar”. I’m saying that reporting that JBL bullied Mauro while Mauro went through an episode of bipolar is the exact same thing because he made no effort to make the distinction that bullying couldn’t be responsible for bipolar swings and let everyone react as they did.

The reality, too, is that because the story went that way we actually don’t know a lot of the specifics that would’ve swung it one way or another to properly gauge it. Like a lot of people came out publicly defending JBL at the time essentially saying that he likes banter but there’s no malice in it. So could it be one of these cases where it was misguided banter and Mauro’s poor mental state at the time exacerbated it? In that case, can you really say JBL was responsible or was it more of an unfortunate poor clash of opposing personalities at a bad time? We could debate if we knew, but these questions weren’t asked because it was left where it was, so all we can do is speculate and none of us were there to do so with any credibility. Meltzer has those contacts to find out, his entire job is to bridge that gap for us, yet we still don’t know.

This is another symptom of poor journalism for me: we essentially get teased with a scandalous headline but there’s no depth or nuance to the story to allow us to make our own mind up. Compare that, say, to the amazing longform story the Irish Times did on the Ana Kriegal case recently where they just laid out everything they had and left it up to the reader to decide how they felt. That’s journalism at its finest to the letter: tons of info, no agenda, no slant, but still a fascinating story than informs and empowers the reader. What Meltzer did here is try lead his audience in a certain way (as you said he’d ‘gone hard’ at JBL previously, which an objective journalist really shouldn’t since his job is reporting facts not bias or conjecture based on his opinion) and walk away from stories without any interest in getting depth when he caught a ton of heat for it. The NOTW at its scandalous worst would’ve sent that level of reporting packing.

Sirsok

I think he is hammering you to that quote becaise it seems it was an inaccurate thing to say, and you have deflected that.

leggo

Sirsok wrote: »

I think he is hammering you to that quote becaise it seems it was an inaccurate thing to say, and you have deflected that.

Why are we pretending saying “JBL bullied Mauro leading to a bipolar breakdown” and allowing people to make assumptions is different to just calling it what it is and saying he said JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar? You guys are intelligent, I know you can see the distinction and understand what I’m saying, no need to get super pedantic at the expense of actually having a conversation.

thebostoncrab

Nopes

leggo wrote: »

Why are we pretending saying “JBL bullied Mauro leading to a bipolar breakdown” and allowing people to make assumptions is different to just calling it what it is and saying he said JBL caused Mauro’s bipolar? You guys are intelligent, I know you can see the distinction and understand what I’m saying, no need to get super pedantic at the expense of actually having a conversation.

Because there is a clear difference: one if fact and one is irresponsible. Meltzer never said the irresponsible one in his reports. In fact, reading back up on everything, Meltzer never even said that the the two were connected, or broke the initial link between the two, that came from Mauro’s good friend Bas Ruten who went very public on Twitter about how much of an asshole JBL was being to Mauro in the build up to his breakdown. On top of that, when pushed about it Meltzer stated there was more he could say, but wasn’t going to.

This is why I’m hammering it home, you gave an example of why you consider Meltzer to be more tabloid and irresponsible with his writing, yet the line you gave wasn’t actually what happened, and it also happened to be picking a story in which he helped bring awareness to a bully in the workplace of a publicly traded company, but your defense on this has been basically “Ah you know what I mean” rather than just going “Ok, I recalled the story incorrectly and it might not have been the best example”.

Again, I want to be clear I’m not attacking you on this, I enjoy a good debate, but you gave an inaccurate case of why Meltzer was irresponsible in his reporting, but as someone that can heavily relate to the story and was happy (Might not the right word but the closest I can find right now) to see Meltzer bring attention to the story because people need to see the impact their words can have on others it’s hard not to see that example and go “That’s not what happened and it was a very important story to break.”

leggo

Again I just don’t agree. I go back to the example of a newspaper reporting something along the lines of “The person was disciplined by their employer the day before they took their life.” It implies blame by linking the two. And I genuinely think, in your heart of hearts, you know this but I think you’re getting hyper technical and pedantic because you just don’t like JBL, you said yourself this story touched a nerve (understandably), and you’re happy with the end result. You said you like to check your objectivity, so please work with me here: go back to that hypothetical newspaper article. If that happened and I came on here and said “that’s an irresponsible way to put it”, would you argue with me? You likely wouldn’t, right? But add JBL and the emotional baggage of his past actions, mixed with Mauro’s illness and that washes that objectivity right away, right? Yet it’s the EXACT same thing fundamentally.

And, come here, if you asked me “Did JBL’s conduct deserve to have him removed from TV?” Then I’d likely agree with you. But that doesn’t mean that doing a hatchet job on him to achieve that end is the right way either, and this is a discussion about Meltzer and his standards, not whether we like JBL or not. The problem is that, if we accept those standards with that level of influence, we simply don’t know what accepted fact is actually spin to achieve an end goal. And someone with that level of influence over others’ livelihoods should be subject to that level of high scrutiny and accountability, do you at least agree on that?

Lastly I’m frankly surprised you found this a positive end result, considering that most people took it to mean that JBL was responsible for Mauro’s suffering. There WAS a witch-hunt, he DID get taken off TV, Mauro still IS on NXT as a result...this all happened and it happened because that’s what people took from the story. But bullying DOESN’T cause bipolar, so the big takeaway from the story was actually increased ignorance about the illness you suffer from. It’s the opposite of awareness if what the public learns is actually inaccurate, and who was responsible for breaking that story and educating said public on the issues involved? I’m legitimately surprised you’re not angry about this. I’ve only suffered the effects of bipolar second-hand and it had me fuming.

Vince135792003

Nopes

thebostoncrab wrote: »

Because there is a clear difference: one if fact and one is irresponsible. Meltzer never said the irresponsible one in his reports. In fact, reading back up on everything, Meltzer never even said that the the two were connected, or broke the initial link between the two, that came from Mauro’s good friend Bas Ruten who went very public on Twitter about how much of an asshole JBL was being to Mauro in the build up to his breakdown. On top of that, when pushed about it Meltzer stated there was more he could say, but wasn’t going to.

This is why I’m hammering it home, you gave an example of why you consider Meltzer to be more tabloid and irresponsible with his writing, yet the line you gave wasn’t actually what happened, and it also happened to be picking a story in which he helped bring awareness to a bully in the workplace of a publicly traded company, but your defense on this has been basically “Ah you know what I mean” rather than just going “Ok, I recalled the story incorrectly and it might not have been the best example”.

Again, I want to be clear I’m not attacking you on this, I enjoy a good debate, but you gave an inaccurate case of why Meltzer was irresponsible in his reporting, but as someone that can heavily relate to the story and was happy (Might not the right word but the closest I can find right now) to see Meltzer bring attention to the story because people need to see the impact their words can have on others it’s hard not to see that example and go “That’s not what happened and it was a very important story to break.”

Great post.

Vince135792003

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Great post.

Apt signature. :pac: