Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Hey, Londoners!
Do you know this creep?

305080287_3add15efd6_m.jpg

Please link to this, post this photo, spread the word. He's one of two thugs who attacked my friend Jackie Danicki on the Tube in London.

How did she get the photo? As she posted in her comments:

The guy was already berating me verbally (this was after the physical assault) when I took the picture. Maybe it was stupid of me to whip out my camera, but I am defiant that way. After I took it, he said, “You dumb bitch, the flash didn’t go off!” I told him I had plenty of light and didn’t need flash. It was right about that time that the man I mentioned in my comment above got on the train and stood between the guys and me.

The other male was about 5′6″, also black (but slightly lighter skinned), with short and very curly hair, wearing a black sweatshirt and black Nike sweatpants/tracksuit trousers (you can just make out his legs and front of torso in the picture).

And, a little more about what happened:

Amy, I would rather not go into detail on what exactly they did, because I have family members who read this blog and I do not wish to upset them any more than they are. (Of course, the police have the full story.) Suffice to say the assault and abuse was both physically violent and sexual in nature.

After about 15 minutes, a woman (of course) finally turned around and told the guys that they were repulsive and should be ashamed of themselves. They started calling her a slut and told her to “go back to where [she] came from” (she sounded North American). Eventually, a very big man did come and stand right next to the guys, telling them to shut up and leave me alone. They weren’t really bothered, just continued calling me a slut and making obscene gestures at me. I did thank him, though I was too shaken to do so profusely enough, I’m afraid - I just wanted out of there.

And stuff like this -- people totally ignoring another person in distress on the subway -- doesn't just happen in London. I do love that poor Jackie had the guts and the quick thinking to handle it like they do in New York, when some girl photographed a willie-whacker on the subway:

OnanTheWhacker.jpg

Again, please link to Jackie's story, and spread the photo around. Somebody knows these guys. Let's get them to come forward.

Posted by aalkon at November 25, 2006 12:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1879

Comments

How horrible for Jacki! Good thinking on her part to snap a pic of the jerk. I think cell phone cameras may just become the next biggest tool in criminal prosecutions since DNA.

And I'm always horrified by these stories of onlookers who do nothing when someone is being attacked or harassed. I can understand that people might be afraid of someone getting violent and not want to confront them, but geez at least whip out your cell phone and call the cops or go find a security guard!

Posted by: deja pseu at November 25, 2006 7:06 AM

This story really scared me. But probably not for the reason you are thinking. The article encourages vigilante action. Hopefully, the person writing this article is an honest upstanding citizen. Hopefully, although sadly, these events actually occurred and this is a photo of the perpetrator. Hopefully, the alleged victim is not another Susan Smith--the mother of the two boys who said two black men abducted her children and was later found to be a liar. Hopefully, she is not a wronged lover. But the truth is that I don't really know and the people reading this article don't really know. I would would feel far more comfortable if this man's picture was being circulated by a reliable source such as the police. I'm a budding advice columnist, Sisterly Advice, and this is good sound advice: Give the authorities a chance to do their jobs.

Posted by: arlinder at November 25, 2006 10:19 AM

> call the cops or go find
> a security guard!

Cops in Britain are unlikely to help. It took her hours to talk to one after going to the station, even though she had her own good image of the assailant. And while the episode was probably recorded on subway video, Jackie says the tape was erased overnight anyway. These things make you wonder what the point of a constabulary force is. We've heard for years that people get in trouble for defending themselves and their homes in Britain, but that police are ineffectual.

British law has important things to deal with:

http://tinyurl.com/yfh8vx

'But monsters are attacking our friend Jackie in the Tube!', you will cry. 'Why can't they deal with these manly monsters in a straightforward way?'

The answer is that they're too busy teaching children to be afraid of men, including the safest imaginable ones:

http://tinyurl.com/ynhofx

Britain is afraid of masculinity. They're afraid of it in an imaginary way, as when children sit next to an average bloke on an airplane. And they're afraid of it in a real way, as when grown women sit next to men in the train. Why?

Divorce culture is probably part of it. There are generations of people (on both sides of the ocean) who grow up not knowing what it's like to have a loving man in the house... Or a grown man of any kind. They don't know how to judge men.

Maybe another part is that America was too successful in clipping Europe's balls after World War II. We broke their spirit in important ways. On the one hand, it's given much of the continent 60 years of peace for the first time in centuries. On the other hand we left the keys with bureaucrats and tweedy, dickless intellectuals. Hence Kosovo; when the call came for international response, the United States delivered the goods... And the blood.

(Imagine if Europe had handled that herself. Wouldn't Bush have been more circumspect in constructing, and justifying, a broader coalition for Iraq?)

Now Europe's under invasion from under-socialized children, and it's going to be a slaughter.

http://tinyurl.com/ymhhgv

Who are they going to call this time? The same ones they called last time: The ones who have the Second Amendment.

A few years ago, a female three-star general made an accusation of sexual harassment against another general, demanding due process and the usual paperwork. It was appalling. She was, after all, a fucking Army general. At some point somebody has to understand that they can't call their big brother for help, because *they're* the big brother.

The LA riots in 1992 ended my knee-jerk liberalism. One reason I was so safe there in Brentwood was that neighbors were packing heat... Even though I couldn't tell which ones. Even though I'd never fired or even touched a gun, I was benefiting from their willingness to confront evil without recourse.

Still...

> Good thinking on her part
> to snap a pic of the jerk.

Yep. The odds of good outcome from having that foto out on the web may be small, be we take comfort from long shots in a time like this.

(Links from Reynolds and Lucianne [probably].)

Posted by: Crid at November 25, 2006 11:12 AM

I've known Jackie a long time, and she has no reason to make this up. She didn't know this guy. Not to say you should take my word for it either, but I believe it happened the way she said it happened.

And by the way, this IS giving the authorities a chance to do their jobs.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at November 25, 2006 11:22 AM

I wrote a huge mondo comment about this this morning, but the software won't take it because it has links.

But Arlinder can't understand that she's begging the question. Her comment begins with an expression of feeling (fear, as it happens) and goes downhill from there.

> The article encourages
> vigilante action

No! It encourages protecting young businesswomen who are quietly going about their business.

> a reliable source such
> as the police

But they're *not* reliable, are they? Kim's right: The authorities squandered their opportunity to protect her. There's a certain kind of coddled person, usually liberal, who thinks we can always drop back and let a righteous daddy figure come forward to fix things. Arlinder literally cannot conceive of a planet where such figures aren't available.

Well, the Old World has become one.

Posted by: Crid at November 25, 2006 12:03 PM

Whoops

Kim = Jim

Posted by: Crid at November 25, 2006 12:04 PM

Saw the story on Feministe. How awful. Hope they find these creeps.

Posted by: MissPinkKate at November 25, 2006 1:48 PM

So sorry about your earlier comment -- software ate it as suspected spam for having too many links, and I only got home and saw this now.

PS Not too many links as far as I'm concerned -- and I even set the software to take up to three, but it apparently ignores me. In fact, it dumps my comments if I put in more than two, but is usually "kinder" to others.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 25, 2006 6:30 PM

I also know Jackie well, and find her to be an ethical person, not somebody who'd make something like this up. And if you've had any experience with crime, you'd know that often, finding the perp has a lot to do with how much you bring to the table, from evidence to effort. (I say this as somebody who tracked down and prosecuted both her car thief and her hit-and-run driver...with little help from the cops.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 25, 2006 6:45 PM

Divorce culture is probably part of it. There are generations of people (on both sides of the ocean) who grow up not knowing what it's like to have a loving man in the house... Or a grown man of any kind. They don't know how to judge men.

Bollocks, says I. Past generations of Europeans consistently had significant percentages of their adult male population killed off in wars. So a lot of kids grew up without the requisite Robert Young figure in the house for a long time before divorce became common.

Posted by: deja pseu at November 25, 2006 7:46 PM

More than once in three years of these comments, I've noted that Robert Young is disproportionately loathed figure among shallow feminists. I can look up the cits on my PC if you want, or you can google 'em yourself. (Google watches Amy pretty carefully, which is another good reason to hang out here.)

When people make fun of 1950's sitcoms, they're not responding to the versimilitude of those images, or the enthusiasm with which they were embraced in a 2- or 3-channel media universe, or even the clumsy way that the fantasy appealed to the human spirit. What they're responding to is the accessibility of the image. The fact that it was designed to sell phosphate-laden laundry detergent (rather than telling people how to live) doesn't seem to matter to the jokesters.

> a lot of kids grew
> up without

If you want to describe fatherlessness as a tolerable condition, have at it. You're perfectly correct: Some Brit skittishness about masculinity probably predates the latest rampages by Federline and Snoop Dog. If you think recent Western generations have handled these issues frankly or well, by all means say so, and put it in a sentence.

That would be fun!

Posted by: Crid at November 25, 2006 9:15 PM

Where did I express loathing for Robert Young? He's more invoked as a cultural mythical father figure. To me that's a pretty neutral reference. I've noticed a pattern that you seem to read a lot of things into comments that aren't there. Tell me, do you find anyone who disagrees with you "shallow"? Or just those who use popular cultural references? Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without ridiculing and condescending? Because I find that pretty shallow, too.

Posted by: deja pseu at November 26, 2006 5:37 AM

Waitwaitwait.
I'm ready to believe Jacki, OK? But what happened here? Jacki said "Suffice to say the assault and abuse was both physically violent and sexual in nature." That, to me, means, well, she was beaten and raped, which is horrible, and I have no problem with vigilante action pursued on the perpetrators, assuming we find the right ones.
But the following copy seemed to indicate that the assault was only verbal. Well, I don't mean 'only,' that is still rotten, but not as life-shattering. Was this another Kitty Genovese, with bystanders not in nearby apartments, but IN THE SAME FUCKING TRAIN, turning their backs on a rape and beating?
First thing I thought of was Michael Caine in some spy movie with Pierce Brosnan , who gets on the London Tube, finds two skinheads berating a black girl, and punches them both out before exiting the train. I do wonder how the court case would go, if they pressed charges.

Posted by: Cat brother at November 26, 2006 7:23 AM

Look, I was (idioticaly) walking down a dark street in my old neighborhood in New York, and a guy ran up and grabbed my boob. Read the story I linked to above ("don't just happen in London" link) and you'll see a similar example.

The thing is, I don't put stuff on my blog when I feel there's a question about it. I know Jackie very well, know her ethics and character, and if she says something happened, it happened. She's not an attention whore. She's a girl who's shocked at how uncivilized civilization can be sometimes. As am I.

Whether something is life-shattering doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted. My hit-and-run driver didn't "shatter" my life; he merely did some damage to my car. You'd better believe I tracked him down like a dog and prosecuted his ass.

Furthermore, even if a friend were merely verbally abused, that's wrong, and I'd go to great lengths to embarrass the perps by printing their photos around the world. People behave with impunity because they feel they can get away with it. I'm always amazed when people do unethical shit to me, especially in connection with my web site; ie, do they read my stuff and think, "Gee, I think it'd be really fun to stick my hand in the tiger's jaw, and see if I get all my fingers back!"?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 26, 2006 8:54 AM

> He's more invoked as a cultural
> mythical father figure.

Why?

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2006 9:10 AM

You're taking me wrong. My post was a request for clarification - I wanted to know, absent gory details, what happened to her. As you can read above, I started by saying that I believed that this happened to her, but I was a little stunned that a beating and rape occurred in the London subway with nobody raising a finger.' I never implied that Jacki was a liar or attention whore.
I am not trying to downplay what happened to her, or to say that the perpetrators shouldn't be found and punished. Let's make that clear from the start. I don't think a crime has to be 'life-shattering' to be prosecuteable, I was saying I myself would find being beaten and raped, under any circumstances, life-shattering. I think that it's a very positive thing that at least one of these assholes has been caught on camera.
I apologize if what I wrote came out wrong. Jacki (and you, in this campaign) has/have my full support.

Posted by: Cat brother at November 26, 2006 9:18 AM

> That, to me, means, well,
> she was

It doesn't have to be the worst thing that her description could mean for it to have been a gruesome train ride for her, right? None of us wants to, but each of us could probably write an accurate transcription of what went down from what she's told. She's nonetheless retained dignity and comfort for her family through being vague. What's the problem?

> I do wonder how the court
> case would go, if
> they pressed charges.

Why? What would we learn about Britain from that outcome? You're implying that there's a wellspring of decency over there that we just happen not to have reached yet because the paperwork hasn't gone through.

I'm not trying to say that you're blaming the victim just by demanding that she fully make her case, just that you're imagining a vast array of social machinery and goodwill on the street that's nowhere in evidence. This legalistic thinking, and reflexive invocation of it, is a big part of the problem.

This crises has two parts. First, we've got an immigrant who's not acclimating to the western models of feminine deportment and respect for women. A commenter on Jackie's blog described her assailant as north African... People are coming to London from cultures that aren't prepared to deal with independent businesswomen going about their lives as they see fit. Secondly, we have a government and court system that says offenders must be given every possible break, as if there were complicated truths in their lives that might make the misconduct forgiveable.

The kid's a punk, but I'm enraged by a society that could be so cynical when a friend --if only the internet kind-- is plainly at risk. This is like when children ruin Amy's visits to coffeehouses. Both the kids and the adults (including the shopkeeper) need discipline.

> it's a very positive thing that
> at least one of these assholes
> has been caught on camera.

Let's hope that it turns out to mean something; at this hour it doesn't look good. When the Gandhi movie came out in 1983, a few people got weird ideas about the universal power of non-violence. But the tool was effective in midcentury India (and later in the American south) only because of the humiliation it brought to oppressors. Without that context, it's worthless. This punk didn't care whether she took his picture or not, and he was right: The police didn't care enough to review their own videotape.

> to disagree with someone without
> ridiculing and condescending?

I almost felt bad before re-reading and taking fresh annoyance at your cliche. One reason feminism is in bad repair is its reliance on these smirking one-liners... And yours doesn't even apply. I didn't say half the reason for British foolishness in airliners and tube trains was divorce, or two thirds or 42.7%; I didn't offer statistics. Want some? Ask Lena to read this for us:

http://tinyurl.com/wpm3m

I said 'part of it was divorce culture.' Speaking broadly to include the whole enchilada, I was trying to get people to think about what happens where families expect government to perform the functions of absent masculine figures.

So what's with the bollocks?

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2006 10:28 AM

"She's nonetheless retained dignity and comfort for her family through being vague. What's the problem?"
I don't feel that I could write an accurate transcript of what happened to her given her description, but I'm certainly not 'demanding' that she do anything. I got a mental picture of what happened to her given the verbiage she used, which may well be very different from what others imagine, and we may all be wrong. I genuinely wanted to know what the bystanders ignored and let happen, as I said, if this was another Kitty Genovese situation. I was asking for more information, not taking Jacki or Amy to task. If no more is forthcoming, that's fine too.
\ I do wonder how the court
> case would go, if
> they pressed charges.
"Why? What would we learn about Britain from that outcome? You're implying that there's a wellspring of decency over there that we just happen not to have reached yet because the paperwork hasn't gone through."
Well, no. I was saying, if these two were found and frontier justice were served (a severe beating, say), and then the vigilantes ended up in court, I would be interested in the outcome. I have no idea what it might be. These two might get a million pounds. They might get 30 days in the county lockup. I believe they could both do with the aforementioned beating, but do not know if it could be administered with impunity.

Posted by: cat brother at November 26, 2006 11:10 AM

Actually, not to sound all happy-clappy, but the vast majority of African immigrants to London have their act together far better than their new British neighbors. I work with them at the Post Office and they're so happy to have things we take for granted (a house they own, an actual car) they'll hold down two jobs at the same time.

It sounds like Jackie had the really bad luck to run into these two monsters. Still, I'd happily get into a whole trainload of black faces instead of one with a couple of pissed-up white yobs...

Posted by: kevin_m at November 26, 2006 11:34 AM

Guys, you might find this hard to believe, but it is extremely humiliating to relate the details of what happened to me. Partly this is (I believe) only natural, and partly it is due to my own personal history with regard to physical abuse. I am deeply embarrassed by what happened, though it is not necessarily logical for me to be. I don't think my parents or brothers will find themselves on this site, so let me just clarify: I was standing on a train platform, waiting for a Tube, when I was suddenly - and totally without provocation (being lost in my own thoughts and listening to my mp3 player) - hit hard in the head, from behind, by one of these two guys. I was then yelled at continuously, on the train, for three stops - called a slut, a whore, told I was born in a whorehouse, had it announced to the rest of the train that I wanted to suck their cocks, and so on. When I got off the train, I was followed down the platform by these two, who continued to shout, "Hey, slut! There goes that fucking slut. Hey, you still want to suck our cocks? Look at that slut!" at me.

You wanted a description, you got one. I hope it made you feel pleasure to read it, because it made me feel like shit to write it. Thanks.

Posted by: Jackie D at November 26, 2006 11:42 AM

"You wanted a description, you got one. I hope it made you feel pleasure to read it, because it made me feel like shit to write it. Thanks."
No, it did not make me feel pleasure, and please don't put that on me. I put right on my last post, "I was asking for more information, not taking Jacki or Amy to task. If no more is forthcoming, that's fine too." Nobody on this site said they didn't believe you or think what happened to you truly sucked. If having written this twice already didn't convince you, I'm not sure what else I can say.
If Amy did not want this incident discussed, and just wanted to circulate the photo of the one thug, she could have said so in her original post, and I and everyone else would have been happy to comply. Or she could have just disabled the comments. Amy typically brings up subjects because she wants them talked about. And I didn't call you at home to demand information, I did what I would have done if Amy had been standing right in front of me, talking about an absent third party, said, "Jesus, that's terrible, what happened?"
Again, you have my sympathy, and I'm sorry if my writings came out wrong. I hope circulating the photos does some good.

Posted by: Cat brother at November 26, 2006 11:54 AM

"Maybe another part is that America was too successful in clipping Europe's balls after World War II. We broke their spirit in important ways. On the one hand, it's given much of the continent 60 years of peace for the first time in centuries. On the other hand we left the keys with bureaucrats and tweedy, dickless intellectuals,."


Care to explain this gibberish with something better than pecker metaphors, Crid?

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2006 11:57 AM

> Again, you have my sympathy, and I'm
> sorry if my writings came out wrong. I
> hope circulating the photos does
> some good.

Same here.

> explain this gibberish

Which part did you miss?

> pecker metaphors

What's the point of blog comment metaphors if you can't mix 'n match? One day, the software will do it for us. They're be little check boxes: Gimme an allusion to the civil rights movement (mouse click), two speculations to how Al Gore would have done things (click click) and a reference to a Bee Gees lyric (click).

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2006 12:07 PM

Okay, Crid.

Here's where your pecker juggernaut started

"Britain is afraid of masculinity...."

(And I'm tempted to throw back at you: "One reason feminism is in bad repair is its reliance on these smirking one-liners...")

Then there's the bit I quoted at 11.57.

I simply don't get the thrust of your rod, as Amy might put it.

You could say it's missing my mental hole...

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at November 26, 2006 12:43 PM

It's exchanges like these:

I simply don't get the thrust of your rod, as Amy might put it.

You could say it's missing my mental hole...

That make it all worthwhile.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 26, 2006 2:06 PM

Joh-dee, it's a blog comment! We're supposed to write bad.

Remember, the people who were sitting next to Jackie on the train knew that they couldn't intervene or their government would punish them too. You can make fun of me for calling this a problem with masculinity.... But it was Jackie and not her boyfriend (husband?) who was attacked, and the attacker was a man and not a woman.

I think within 30 years, Europe will be our second-shittiest continent... If not in total wretchedness, then at least in squandered opportunity. They've got a long way to fall but they're falling freely. Software limits the number of links in a comment, but please Google the many columns by Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple regarding European demographic trends. Here's a taste, if you promise not to vomit at the banner: tinyurl.com/y98t9g

Also, Reynolds links a Steyn column in today's Chicago Sun-Times that addresses this exact topic.

Why did Europe go spineless? How are they convinced that problems can be handled by a compassionate government committee? Why is the EU constitution something like 5,000 pages long? Why are they so enthralled by the United Nations despite the corruption?

I think it's because the United States has kept them off each other's throats for 60 years, so they've forgotten how aggression works, and they're spooked by it. In the seventh decade after the war we still have 100,000+ plus troops over there, but our boys are so well behaved nowadays that the populace thinks the peace is because of something they did. If problems can be wrapped up in enough red tape, they'll just go away. That's what's happening to this assault, right?

If you have a boy aged 7-17 in your life and you live in Los Angeles, take him to the Fort MacArthur Military Museum in San Pedro on a Sunday afternoon. It's an old cannon battery built into one of the most beautiful hillsides in the the United States. It was built about a hundred years ago to defend the ports from invading Mongol hordes. The museum is a very casual affair run by enthusiasts (they have a tipjar for admission), and shows what it was like for people when we worried about border attacks. There are bunch of tunnels and things to crawl around in and look at. The wheels will turn on the drive home and the kid will figure out that the reason we don't need guns today is that we have missiles. We're still being defended, but our defenses are out of sight. This is important to know. I'll post a link in the next comment.

See what I mean, jelly bean?

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2006 2:19 PM

http://tinyurl.com/vegkn

PS- I said bad things about tinyurl a few weeks ago that weren't true... It's not slipping advertisments in like I'd thought. Sorry

Posted by: Crid at November 26, 2006 2:21 PM

Crid,
I don't buy your interpretation of Jackie's brutally distressing experience on the London tube as an unambiguous symptom of the wussification of Britain due to the presence of masculine US troops in Europe.

Steyn's dazzlingly doomy demographics are predicated on two dubious "truths": that more brown babies in Europe are a bad thing because they'll all grow up to be bad; that brown mummies will keep popping up loads of babies for ever and ever, entirely unaffected by the cultural trends persuading white mummies to limit sprog production.

Dalrymple is the bees knees on the whole. But a recent snot piece he wrote about NZ (featured not so long ago on AL Daily) painted a ludicrously simplistic picture of the country based on an out of date (though horrific) court case, a feverishly nostalgic concept of an "ideal" NZ than never existed and what seemed to be a lot of harrumphing he picked up from like-minded chaps about soft sentencing. (I hold no great affection for NZ - quite the reverse -but even I bridled at his effortlessly eloquent but empty generalisations).

Also, Crid. I believe Paglia is to blame for the way you do your regular "epater the feminists" dance whenever possible - and equate masculinity with EVERYTHING that's hairy, vital, juicy, creative, brave, jut-jawed, bullshit uncovering, clear-eyed and all round kinda cute in a rough 'n ready way. She is brilliant in spots but BOY does she pander to your gender, like the worst sort of floozie squeezing the intellectual biceps of the lug on the barstool next to her.

(This is not terrible well thought out - but I have to dash to Rhode Island today).

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at November 27, 2006 4:50 AM

> entirely unaffected by the cultural
> trends persuading white mummies to
> limit sprog production.

I didn't say anything about color. But you're begging the question. If immigrant punks won't allow the Jackies of the world (including their own immigrant sisters) to participate in the economy, then they're resisting the civilizing 'trends' from which they hope to benefit, right? It's tautalogical. You remind me of something Iaccoca once said in that hideous book: "Liberals want things to go well by accident." These people are not going to be socialized until someone insists. Immigrants either adapt or they dominate... Forget Paris.

> BOY does she pander to
> your gender

Naw, she munches carpet. It's not that she's nice to men, it's that she realizes that perspectives founded in coddling are foggy. She doesn't pander to *anybody.*

Posted by: Crid at November 27, 2006 6:16 AM

Crid,
Just because Paglia nibbles the shagpile doesn't mean she ain't an apologist for all things muscular.

I'm very much in favor of critics with gusset-sopping enthusiasm (and I remain genuinely grateful you once provoked me to read Paglia properly - she is sometimes amazing). But she's Daddy's little groupie, bar none.

Ps. I hate going around forts. So - thank god - do my lumbering sons.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at November 27, 2006 8:41 AM

Masculinity needs no apologist, Angel, it built your planet.

Posted by: Crid at November 27, 2006 9:01 AM

Quit being so fucking disarming:)

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at November 27, 2006 9:08 AM

I don't see Paglia as a "nibbler" of anything. But, I do love the term, "the shagpile."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 27, 2006 11:02 AM

In the 70's, we liked it thick.

We also liked it green.

Posted by: Crid at November 27, 2006 11:25 AM

Pussy?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 27, 2006 11:48 AM

Shag, Amy. Floor covering.

How dare you.

Posted by: Crid at November 27, 2006 11:50 AM

Who...meee?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 27, 2006 1:25 PM

Leave a comment