Update: Global Times and Ai Weiwei

Five full days after my post on Ai Weiwei and the Global Times was published, I received an email from someone relatively high up at the paper telling me that my description of the meeting with Mr. Hu and the staff as depicted in the post was categorically untrue. I’m putting this post up because I want the newspaper’s response to be on the record.

I can say definitively that the lower portion of the post, in which I describe my conversation with a GT editor, is true because I was there having the conversation. I cannot say definitively that the episode involving Mr. Hu is true, as I wasn’t there, obviously. But I can say that I heard about it from sources I trust like brothers/sisters. I was told that throughout the day, after the meeting, the office was buzzing about Mr. Hu’s announcement.

That said, it is still hearsay. A former journalist, I used trusted sources and thought long and hard about putting up the post to begin with. I wasn’t there. Maybe the meeting was perceived differently by different attendees. Maybe the story I heard was exaggerated, or maybe it was totally accurate. I definitely believe that the story, or at least the gist of it, is true, but I also have to offer the other side of the story.

In spite of my frustrations with the direction the Global Times has taken, underscored by the recent Ai Weiwei editorials, I still have great respect for many who work there, and good memories of our working together. The higher-level person who contacted me and insisted the story is false is one of those people I deeply respect.

So there’s both sides. I wanted to put it all on the table and let readers know how the paper responded.

As I said, it was five full days before the paper contacted me. The entry was translated into Chinese the very day it posted and got a fair amount of distribution. If it were categorically false I wish they had contacted me on day one, when they first read it.

Apologies for a long and possibly ambiguous post. I hope it’s clear why I felt I had to write it.

The Discussion: 60 Comments

to give the global times some rare plus points, there was an article today with a bit of criticism for the china legal system, in an article about the lawyer accused in a false evidence case in chongqing … but mostly that paper shoots itself in the foot, day after day.

April 20, 2011 @ 7:38 pm | Comment

Gregory, I often gave the GT credit for giving multiple sides to issues, and even criticizing the government (not to mention their publishing Ask Alessandro and posts by Hao Leifeng). But their Ai Weiwei pieces are in a class by themselves.

April 20, 2011 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

Hey Richard,
I am not surprised in the least.
While I am sure there are great people that work there, that paper is like most others, a mouth piece of the CCP. As you know along with Ai Wei Wei Wen Tao who was a good friend of Ai’s and whom I meet in London this year was taken from his home the same day that Ai went missing and has not been heard from since. He too worked a the GT and here is an interview with him about the way he was fired from that place. Link below


April 20, 2011 @ 8:23 pm | Comment

Well, there’s both sides, and people from China and people outside the China who know the CCP, know which side to trust. All CCP’s controlled media have been methodically spreading malicious lies about Ai Wei Wei, and its wumao army are spreading more lies and attack not just on the Chinese media and Chinese websites, but site like NYTimes (in the comments), Twitter and Facebook.

April 20, 2011 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

Why don’t they come here and post their own opinions for all to see? It will be interesting.

April 20, 2011 @ 9:15 pm | Comment

Eco, I actually asked them the same question, and invited them to comment here.

For some reason a lot of comments from trusted commenters are getting stuck in the comments moderation queue tonight. If your comments don’t immediately appear fear not, I’ll get them published as quickly as I can. I’ll be traveling by train for 15 hours starting tomorrow night, so please be patient.

April 20, 2011 @ 10:08 pm | Comment

Basic fact is this: neither Richard, nor his sources, have any interest in manufacturing a story about the editor of the Global Times calling together his staff in order to carry out an astroturfing campaign. In fact, Richard has good reasons to want to keep things as smooth as possible between himself and the paper.

And Richard, for this person to email you in this fashion, presumably off the record otherwise you would have published what they sent you, tells you everything you need to know about that publication.

April 21, 2011 @ 1:33 am | Comment

FOARP sums it up very well.

April 21, 2011 @ 2:13 am | Comment

“for this person to email you in this fashion, presumably off the record otherwise you would have published what they sent you, tells you everything you need to know about that publication.”

It’s called Chinese characteristics.

April 21, 2011 @ 9:02 am | Comment

The truth is I was actually toying with the idea of going back, and that’s what I was doing there. But I had already made my mind made up, or at least the decision was made in my heart: I could not go back, much as I loved working with the people there.

April 21, 2011 @ 9:50 am | Comment

Close-door meetings like the one in GT are held in all newsrooms almost everyday, conveying instructions and orders from above especially from the Propaganda Department.

April 21, 2011 @ 11:22 am | Comment

Without a time/date stamped verifiable voice/video recording of the meeting in question that stands up to forensic examination in this digital age, no one can be sure of what was (and wasn’t) said. In the absence of incontrovertible proof, we are dealing with a balance of probabilities. In that scenario, what one chooses to (and chooses not to) believe likely reflects one’s personal biases. At the end of the day, it boils down to the adage of “where there’s smoke”…

April 21, 2011 @ 1:11 pm | Comment

That is a pity and a signicant lost to them. Hope they are aware of it, somehow.

As i said before, when one is alone surrounded by perceived enemies, it is tome to ask what was done with potential friends.

April 21, 2011 @ 3:29 pm | Comment

In Pravda there are no news, in Iveztiya there are no truths, and in Global Times no global views.

April 21, 2011 @ 4:19 pm | Comment

@Ecodelta – You’ve got Pravda/Izvestia the wrong way round. Yes, I am a pedant.

@SKC – I’m not a journalist, but I do know something about the law.
Hearsay, at least in England and Wales, is only inadmissable in criminal trials, but can still be admitted under certain circumstances, such as, for example, when the original witness refuses to testify but has already relayed their evidence to others.

In civil cases, which are decided on the balance of probabilities, hearsay is admissable. In this case, for Richard, on the one hand he has heard from people (i.e., more than one person) who were at the meeting, who apparently have no interest in lying, that the meeting took place and was as described.

On the other, he has now been told, by someone who does have an interest in lying about the event, that it did not take place.

On the balance of probabilities, who would you believe?

April 21, 2011 @ 4:55 pm | Comment


No. I am right 😛

The original (soviert)Russian adage was something like this.

“In truth there are no news, in news there are no truths”

It was a play with words between news and truth.

April 21, 2011 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

@Ecodelta – I stand corrected. You might also add that the People’s Daily is not popular.

April 21, 2011 @ 6:03 pm | Comment

As of today, April 21st, your blog is blocked by the government. To me, this is a verification which tells me that all you wrote is hard truth.

April 21, 2011 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

My Thoughts. “Ai Weiwei-Freedom”. Art, image.


April 21, 2011 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

on the balance of probabilities, I believe when there is smoke, there is fire. I merely brought it up because it appeared that we were going down the road of ‘did the meeting take place or not’ and more importantly, ‘did the editor say those things or not’. That comes down to he said/she said, which isn’t all that satisfying.

On a separate note, a philosopher (Nietzsche, maybe, but can’t remember who for sure) once asked, if you are alone in a room with a fire on in the fireplace, you leave the room then come back and the fire is still on, can you actually be sure that the fire was burning the whole time you were gone?

April 22, 2011 @ 1:01 am | Comment

Common law legal systems have rules restricting the admission of hearsay evidence to varying degrees, with various exceptions, in various kinds of civil and criminal cases. None of these rules have anything whatsoever to do with Richard’s reporting. Reporters rely on hearsay evidence all the time and it’s not a problem so long as there is some basis for believing that the hearsay is reliable, and that standard is easily met here.

The CCP (like communist parties everywhere) has a long history of lying in the service of power. The Global Times functions an agent of the CCP. Why would anyone credit anything said by the apparatchiks at the GT?

April 22, 2011 @ 9:53 am | Comment


This isn’t news. The duck has been blocked for as long as I’ve been reading it, which is about two years now. Not a new development by any means.

April 22, 2011 @ 10:34 am | Comment

@Nicholas MacDonald – Ah, the sunny days of 2007, when blocking was sporadic and easily avoided . . .

April 22, 2011 @ 1:06 pm | Comment

Even as late as 2010 I could get by with a simple web based proxy… now I need an industrial-strength VPN just to get through. Times have changed…

April 22, 2011 @ 4:06 pm | Comment

SK, I think it’s a bit different from he said/she said for the reasons FOARP gave (nothing in it for the people who told me it’s true, something in it perhaps for the one who says it’s not). But that’s why I wrote that I can’t say “definitively.”

Nicholas, I’m finding it painful to get onto most blocked sites even with Witopia. The one giving me the most trouble is a site that isn’t actually blocked but seems to have been slowed down to a trickle, Gmail. Driving me crazy.

April 22, 2011 @ 5:57 pm | Comment

Two options come to my mind.

Set up your own vpn infrastructure. Rent a server outside China. And set up a tunnel to it. Make sure you are out of the IP adreeses of major Vpn providers. You may arrange a tunnel with a computer friend also.

It is quite probable that they are throttling down ell knownvpn providers address spaces.

Another options is to use plain old switched telephone network. Use a modem to connect to to a computer outside China. That way you bypass their network infrastructure.

April 22, 2011 @ 7:02 pm | Comment


ExpressVPN works quite well for me, though I’m in Shanghai.

April 22, 2011 @ 7:55 pm | Comment

My Thoughts. “Ai Weiwei-Freedom”. Art, image.


April 22, 2011 @ 10:02 pm | Comment

Send the folks at Witopia an email asking for advice on how to tinker with your vpn. They reply quickly and with useful info.

Want to revisit the subject of body scanners in airports and how much more “sane” the Chinese are than we in the U.S.? (Virtual rape and sexual molestation!!!) Here’s a brief article from the WSJ about the introduction of such technologies to Chinese airports, railway stations, and various border crossings. Saner my ass.


April 23, 2011 @ 1:58 am | Comment

I was recently through Lindbergh Field, and got to experience the body scanner for the first time. The rest of my family got the old metal detector alone, didn’t have to opt out, and didn’t get the TSA rub-down. Good times.

The Chinese travelling public might soon be getting scanned up the wazoo, since, as the article suggests, they are in no position to do anything about it. If the CCP has any fiscal interest in the product itself, and/or wants to showcase this as a beacon of home-grown tech, then even moreso. Unfortunately, the true measure of safety of these devices will not be known for years, possibly decades.

April 23, 2011 @ 11:36 am | Comment

Gan Lu, this belongs in the open thread. Sounds like the Chinese have developed a better system than the US. Hats off to them.

“Unlike those produced in the U.S., this scanner can detect prohibited objects while also guarding people’s privacy,” the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported late Thursday, citing an executive at the product’s manufacturer.

The scanner can automatically delete personal information when it completes its task, the report said, citing Jia Zhong, general manager of Tianjin Chongfang Science &Technology Company.

Please respond, if you’d like, in the open thread. Thanks.

April 23, 2011 @ 11:45 am | Comment


Gmail has slowed down because hackers operating at the direction of the Party have been busy attacking Google. The Chinese Government of course denies that it is doing anything at all to Google, but as I said above, no one believes anything they say.

The only interesting question is why the CCP seems so determined to drive Google and Gmail out of business in China. There are two possible explanations. One is just commercial – they are trying to handicap Google in order to drive business to Chinese competitors. The evidence for that is that the Chinese Government is also harassing Federal Express, presumably in order to benefit its Chinese competitors. The other is that Google won’t cooperate with the CCP’s desire to spy on and censor email. Probably it’s a combination of the two motives.

April 24, 2011 @ 10:33 am | Comment

Ai for Manning. Straight up. The West won’t be getting Ai for free, and China can simultaneously humiliate the West and harp on its hypocrisy.

Ai broke the law. Manning broke the law. Ai complains extravagantly, Manning unveiled obscene crimes against humanity in the context of a war that shouldn’t have happened.

Manning has accomplished more for human rights with one keystroke than Liu and Ai combined have in their entire lifetimes. We can probably throw their descendents in there with them.

So how about it, a Nobel and amnesty for Brad Manning and Liu and Ai are given a free pass?

April 29, 2011 @ 1:28 pm | Comment

The other is that Google won’t cooperate with the CCP’s desire to spy on and censor email.

You can strike this from the list. Google has absolutely no problem helping governments spy on their citizens. They put the backdoor in for a reason. It’s a time-honored American tradition to put money above human lives- just ask IBM. Their big break was streamlining the Holocaust.

In [x] there are no news, in [x] there are no truths

Fill in the blank. Fox, CNN, BBC, AFP, Der Spiegel, take your pick. At least Orly Taitz is not mentioned in the Global Times or whatever it’s called.

April 29, 2011 @ 1:34 pm | Comment

Hi yourfriend.

Did they just setup new filter rules in the great firewall to let you go out?

April 30, 2011 @ 5:15 am | Comment

“If the masses complain or make objections, it shows that there are problems with our policies and our work. When the masses make comments, even sharp comments, don’t immediately put them under investigation…or attack and suppress them. This way of doing things is actually a sign of weakness, a sign of mental weakness. No matter what, we Communist Party members should not oppose ourselves against the masses.”

Mao Zedong

April 30, 2011 @ 8:01 am | Comment

Haven’t been paying as much attention lately, but what law did Ai break again? I didn’t realize the CCP had finally put their snow job together. Must’ve missed it.

I agree that Manning did a good thing, but more in the name of transparency and information freedom. I’m not sure that he furthered human rights directly, though he certainly cast a light onto some shadowy human rights transgressions. I guess for the sake of YF trying to cobble together an argument, that’s the same thing.

Someone like YF can certainly nominate Manning for a Nobel. That’s the beauty of the Nobel…it’s independent. That might come as news to folks like YF.

It also appears that YF proposes to know what Liu’s and Ai’s descendants will accomplish in the future. Interesting crystal-ball powers for a CCP apologist.

To eco:
that’s a great quote, from Mao no less?!? I wonder if he is turning in his grave at the current CCP’s display of weakness/mental weakness.

April 30, 2011 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

And we can see Mao changed his mind easily…
Or rather,I don’t think his actually mean it in the first place.

April 30, 2011 @ 1:31 pm | Comment


April 30, 2011 @ 1:39 pm | Comment

Sorry,I wanted to say “I don’t think he actually meant it”.
That’s embarrassing.

April 30, 2011 @ 1:46 pm | Comment

How romantic it would be to be back in that passionate age, to join the Emperor on his long march, crossing over rivers, lakes, snowy mountains, marshlands, killing countless number of people, and to be able to tell your grandchildren that I partook in that heroic journey of revolution.

Much better than living a shrivelled and impotent life like most Chinese do in the these Ugly States of Amelika today.

April 30, 2011 @ 10:56 pm | Comment

To Red Star,

it certainly doesn’t surprise me that neanderthals of your ilk find the killing of countless people “romantic”. And it’s certainly not too late to run back into the open arms of that CCP you so adore. For starters, it would make you much less of a hypocrite than you are now.

Hey, did you enjoy how Mao described the actions of today’s CCP as constituting “mental weakness”? I sure did.

May 1, 2011 @ 1:18 am | Comment

Killing your enemies for the liberation of your people, nothing is more romantic than this.

May 1, 2011 @ 2:11 am | Comment

@HX – Your mask is slipping somewhat. I think we all understand the desire to escape from the dullness of day to day life, but the desire to do so through fantasies of red revolution is somewhat odd. It does, however, say much about your loyalty to an idealised country and a party which does not actually exist, rather than objective support for China and the CCP as they are.

May 1, 2011 @ 3:24 am | Comment

SK Cheung
I’m not sure that he furthered human rights directly

And how, exactly, have Ai or Liu “furthered human rights directly”? They have not.

That’s the beauty of the Nobel…it’s independent.

Except not. It’s awarded by a non-democratic cabal of Western politicians and celebrities. Awarding a warmonger like Liu (who avidly supported the disgusting Iraq War) the Nobel is laughable.

May 1, 2011 @ 7:39 am | Comment

“have Ai or Liu “furthered human rights directly”? They have not.”
—nor have I claimed that they have done so. Did Manning releasing documents that others compiled/created take human rights to a new level, or did he take transparency there? For me, it is clearly the latter. On the other hand, Liu created a Charter enumerating rights that Chinese people deserve. It’s night and day, if one were compelled to compare.

Ai is another thing altogether. He was putting names to the faceless masses of kids who died. More akin to Manning, in terms of putting some transparency onto an event. Rights had nothing to do with it until the CCP chose to infringe on his. But like Mao said, it’s that mental weakness thing.

However, I realize you guys have a chronic addiction to the need to compare, so here we are.

“It’s awarded by a non-democratic cabal of Western politicians and celebrities.”
—huh? Interesting way to describe a Norwegian committee. But a CCP apologist will obviously do what a CCP apologist has got to do. Bravo. Oh, news flash, Liu wasn’t awarded because of his views on Iraq. On the other hand, no one expects someone like you to actually bring facts into consideration. And you guys take whining to an art-form.

May 1, 2011 @ 12:39 pm | Comment

Transparency and human rights go hand in hand.

Liu wasn’t awarded because of his views on Iraq.

Yes, a warmonger and advocate of neo-colonialism was given a peace prize, case closed.

May 2, 2011 @ 12:35 pm | Comment

“Transparency and human rights go hand in hand.”
—oh brother. When you have no argument to make (which for you is rather often), you resort to the equivalent of ‘one thing equals another’. That is fantastic fantastic stuff they teach you at the training facility.

You know what, let me spell it out for you. Start by acknowledging that what Manning did furthers transparency. Then tell us how the transparency Mr. Manning provided goes to further human rights. If you make it that far, you might have the beginnings of an argument. Good luck.

“a warmonger and advocate of neo-colonialism was given a peace prize”
—yo Einstein, you’re missing the question, the concept, and the point. One could also say “a Chinese citizen was given a peace prize”, which would be about as accurate as your stupid statement. Or ” a guy with a last name of Liu was given a peace prize”. The point, for the truly incompetent, is that his being a Chinese citizen, his last name being Liu, and his views on Iraq, were not the reason for his being awarded the Nobel. Time to get that through your incredibly thick skull. Again, good luck. Though I enjoyed how you can “close a case” without the facts…how very CCP of you.

May 3, 2011 @ 4:14 am | Comment

yo Einstein, you’re missing the question, the concept

It’s called the Nobel PEACE prize. It’s for PEACE. Or are you going to take on special clauses and embellishments and pure BS onto a word like you do with “democracy” again? Save your breath.

were not the reason for his being awarded the Nobel.

Right, they were thinking of giving Stalin one too.

May 3, 2011 @ 11:40 am | Comment

@SKC – I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that freedom of speech, and a functioning democracy, requires freedom of information. If a government hides an abuse of human rights, then someone who helps uncover the government’s actions does act in defence of human rights.

Where I differ with yourfriend – well, he present a false version of Liu’s views, and conflates his views on the Iraq war with his advocacy of human rights in China, and continues to propagate the idiotic smear that Liu supports colonialism.

May 3, 2011 @ 5:49 pm | Comment

“It’s called the Nobel PEACE prize. It’s for PEACE.”
—indeed. Hey, did you notice that they gave him the prize for the Charter, and not for his views on the Iraq war? Or would that require powers of observation that exceed your payscale? Listen, his views on Iraq were what they were. But for you to even try to conflate that with his Nobel is weak stuff. It’s the same old character assassination stuff which seems to be all that you CCP apologists are capable of.

“Right, they were thinking of giving Stalin one too.”
—wow, fascinating tidbit of information. Hey, remind me again….did they end up giving him one? Cuz I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t just be throwing a useless and invalid comparison out there, now would you? And while you’re at it with the Stalin stuff, did they give Mao one?


I agree that “democracy” requires, among other things, freedom of speech and freedom of information. The latter is what Manning provided. The access to that information may allow someone else to uncover human rights abuses, and maybe even to do something about it. Manning, thus far, has not been that “someone else”.

May 4, 2011 @ 12:59 am | Comment

China, and continues to propagate the idiotic smear that Liu supports colonialism.

Since I’m actually Chinese I can understand the typical self-critical hyperbole about how the West should colonize China for 300 years blablablablablabla.

But when he supported the Iraq War it showed how much of a naive, starry-eyed warmonger he is. The fact that such an impotent and myopic world view earns a man a “peace” prize when he is more an advocate of religious and cultural war is a testament to the convoluted political whoredom of many an ivory tower Westerner who feel they should be able to dictate policy to sovereign states.

May 4, 2011 @ 2:40 am | Comment

SK Cheung
Hey, did you notice that they gave him the prize for the Charter, and not for his views on the Iraq war?

Hey, did you notice that doing a little good is, on balance, canceled out by doing a lot of bad? And a lot of warmongering sets a little peace back quite a bit? Did you notice also that the MAN won the prize, and not any other signer of the charter, nor the charter itself?

Or is this too much work for someone on the payroll of a Western government?

May 4, 2011 @ 2:43 am | Comment

Ummm…he agreed with the Iraq war. In what space-time continuum does that constitute “doing a lot of bad”, pray tell? And once again, the Nobel was in recognition of the charter. It was not a referendum of his entire life. And at the end of the day, the decision is at the discretion of the Nobel committee. If you don’t like it, make your own award that is coveted the world over, instead of the incessant whining and sour grapes. That must reach the threshold of being unbecoming, even for a ccp apologist. Note also that the ccp tried their own award, except the “winner” didn’t bother to collect it. So happy trails with that one.

I did notice that the MAN won the award, rather than the charter. Maybe you can point out the last time a Nobel was awarded to a thing, rather than to a person. I imagine you must have an incredibly compelling reason for bringing up such a brilliant observation. Fantastic stuff. I can’t wait.

And indeed, only the author of the charter got recognized, and not the signatories. I guess you will just have to ask yourself, logically speaking, whether it makes more sense to award only the person who created the work, or all the folks who signed on after the fact. The logical answer seems pretty clear to me, but I am certainly no expert in your form of “logic”.

Once again, you’ve brought up some incredibly useful points. Can’t wait to hear what you have to say next. The ccp must be so proud.

May 4, 2011 @ 6:58 am | Comment

And once again, the Nobel was in recognition of the charter.

I guess Hitler should be given a prize for building some snazzy infrastructure too, then. And no, the Peace Prize is considered a joke and is not coveted at all by anyone but four year olds of all ages. Now Nobels for Physics, Biology, and Chemistry, those are worth bragging about.

Your long-winded, whiny post just proves that the peace prize is a farce used by brainless political zombies who are completely oblivious as to how to achieve peace. How long have these ivory tower Westerners been handing it out, and how much more “peaceful” is the world as a result?

May 4, 2011 @ 7:34 am | Comment

Nice theory about hitler. Minor problem though…he didn’t win one. So it is illogical to try to compare him (or your earlier lame attempt with Stalin) to liu. Why is it that you ccp apologist types have such a poor grasp of logic, and such a profound inability to compare things that are actually comparable? They really need to revise their training regimen.

Considering that the Nobel is apparently so inconsequential, you guys sure spend a lot of time whining about it. To each his own, as I always say.

I do write more than you. It seems to take more effort in trying to draw out the intestines for folks like you. It might also relate to how you seem to have so few answers to direct questions. But hey, you do what you gotta do.

May 4, 2011 @ 8:42 am | Comment



Hopefully Liu will appreciate the irony while he sits in jail.

May 4, 2011 @ 8:56 am | Comment

“YOU WORK FOR THE CCP” — possibly. Can’t say for sure.

“YOU ARE A FENQING” — I mean, seriously, is there any doubt?

“THE CCP PAYS YOU 50 CENTS” — I dunno. Do they? More importantly, if they do, are they really getting their money’s worth with you?

“THE WEST IS GREAT” — actually, it’s alright, but certainly has its flaws. However, I much prefer it as opposed to the CCP system, which is why I live here. How about you?

Quite enjoyed the caps, if for no other reason that it’s something different from you, so well done. I don’t know if I’m smart, but I certainly have a grasp of logic, and can easily identify those who don’t. I can also easily identify those who have no answers to any questions…here’s looking at you, pal.

It is unfortunate that Liu sits in jail. But as ecodelta alluded to, in Mao’s own words, the CCP has an issue with mental weakness. And with human rights.

May 4, 2011 @ 11:21 am | Comment

It looks like the CCP finally got their story together, and Ai is being held for “tax evasion”. Only problem is that he’s not being accused of personally evading taxes. The tax evasion was committed by the Beijing Fake Cultural Development Company. Xinhua says this company is “controlled” by Ai. But his wife says that Ai is not the director, CEO, nor legal representative of this company.

So questions remain. Did the company even commit a crime? After all, we are dealing with the CCP here. And even if it did, is Ai the person who should bear the ultimate legal responsibility? Well, I suppose he should, cuz the CCP views him as a pain in their side, and the Chinese legal system is perfectly suited to rid the CCP of those pains.

May 23, 2011 @ 4:41 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.