So said Doc Evatt once, in a heated ALP caucus just before the split, referring to those he perceived as “groupers”.
Over at Troppo, Don Arthur has posted some commentary on Christopher Pearson’s take down of a book he says has just been “launched” by the “postmodern Left”. The book (or should that be text?) in question is The War on Democracy: Conservative Opinion in the Australian Press. One of the authors, it seems, has committed the heinous sin of writing a book about Derrida.
Pearson has at least read the chapter about himself (and as Don notes, if his fellow pundits also attack their respective chapters, it might be a good marketing strategy for UWA Press). But with the exception of Andrew Norton, who’s written a post about it, none of the other commenters on the Troppo thread appear to have even taken the time to read the extracts posted at the publisher’s site and in an appropriately postmodern gesture, on myspace.
The irony that a book that criticises the op/edders’ habit of attributing all manner of sins to “the left” is immediately attacked without being read would not have been lost on Derrida himself. (An irony which Don noticed, while Pearson is apparently oblivious to it – having given a collective authorial attribution to “the postmodern Left” as if the book had been co-authored by a viral leftist academic conspiracy)
The ideological nature of the response to the book is exemplified in one comment on Don’s thread.
Rob writes (inter alia):
An odd enterprise, but I look forward to reading it. Can one imagine the right writing such a book against the spokespersons of the left (it would be a lot longer).
I’ve long been intrigued by the fact that many of the left simply cannot comprehend that there are those in the world who do not agree with them.
Writing as someone who’s on the left and can easily comprehend that there are those in the world who don’t agree with me, I’m intrigued by this part of Rob’s comment:
Can one imagine the right writing such a book against the spokespersons of the left (it would be a lot longer).
Would it? Might it not force “the right� to write a book that actually cites individuals’ writing rather than making sweeping generalisations like “the left thinks�, “the left says�?
The giveaway is Rob’s attribution of putative authorship to “the right�. Who is that exactly? Could this (non) debate be between imaginary ideological formations rather than identifiable people?
Who would actually be included in a book critiquing prominent left wing commentators? Who are the left wing public figures comparable to the columnists under attack in this book? Can names actually be given to “the left” in the public sphere and can their actual writings be analysed?
The book has seven chapters on seven prominent columnists. Are there actually seven prominent left columnists writing for the mainstream media in Australia? Who are they?
Among other comments on what he called “the ethics of reading”, Derrida complained that his opponents failed to debate with him in the classic fashion, by citing passages and criticising arguments.
Somewhere, I suspect, Jacques Derrida has a wry smile on his face.
Ohhhh yeah.
As Lleyton Hewitt would say, pumped up by testosterone and that *special* kind of sweaty self-love, ‘c’mon!’ I feel the love tonight, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that a bit of candour is going to be required in this Left/Right battle.
Let’s shoot up the Downers, elevate the Poppers, and drain the magic lake.
I’ve got a big towel ready for sooking when the big calls of ‘sook‘ come out, a copy of Manning Clark’s Short History to wave, and I’m counting on my mates to stick up for me at the bus stop (bike sheds had been abolished at most State primary schools by my era).
I say, apart from Andrew Norton, there seem to be barely any on the Right or on the scumbag ‘decent’ Left, the real ’surrender left’, who can read at all, or spot a paradox if a pair of them were worn by the local rum-drunken goth teenagers.
Game on.
Adams is the only left-of-centre columnist who inspires similar levels of annoyance on the right as those in this book do on the left, though there are others who are local irritants such as Kenneth Davidson at The Age. It’s curious that there are so few though, given the market for left-wing opinion evident in books and blogs. Is this just fluke, or are there reasons for it?
I imagine there are reasons for it, Andrew. It takes a conscious decision by an editor to give someone a regular column. Evidently market consideration are not the only factors taken into account.
I don’t really want to give credence to the interminable left versus right squabbling so beloved of the blogosphere (and which I’ve been know to indulge in in weaker moments), but it actually isn’t all that hard to list 7 or more left-leaning MSM op-ed pundits:
SMH: – Richard Ackland, Mike Carlton, Adele Horin, Alan Ramsey, Anne Summers
The Age – Kenneth Davidson, Terry Lane
The Australian – Phillip Adams
Then again, that’s about it. I don’t know that there are any others that I’d label as consistently left-leaning in any of the “broadsheets”, although RWDBs would probably include people like Michelle Grattan, Ross Gittins and Robert Manne. Moreover, with the exception of Davidson and Lane, the rest of them are either (as far as one can tell) classical liberals or at most very mild social democrats with a detectable leaning to moderate right wing Labor. Lane and Davidson are the only ones who lean as far to the left as RWDBs like Windschuttle, Devine, Ackerman, Bolt and Albrechtsen do to the right.
Well I give credence, Ken, to the interminable Left versus Right squabbling, in the same sense that I give respect to (say) the interminable start and finish of football seasons. May the best collective win, may all glory be fleeting, and c’arn le gauche et les cygnes!
…
As to Richard Ackland, Mike Carlton, Alan Ramsey and Terry Lane, I’d hypothesise that they remain hired solely on the bases of their bizarre nostalgic fixations: Ackland fixated on the corruption of the modern legal system against that of Ye Olden Days, Carlton fixated on the deviated preversions of the modern youth and of the sickening uniqueness of his own bourgeois offspring, Ramsey fixated on the homoerotic wine-soaked freemasonry of the late 1960s Press Gallery, and Lane, for which he should be given points for stamina if nothing else, fixated on Jews.
The op-ed market is a wonderful thing. It distributes the most unwanted resources to the most unwilling of readers in the most efficient of ways.
Ken,
Adele Horin might end up on the left of the centre but she’s evidence based, not argumentative for the sake of it. I agree with the rest of the list. Similarly if Andrew Norton were a columnist, I would regard him similarly. Someone you can read without the suspicion that you’re being sold a line.
This comment from Pearson really shows how divorced from reality he is -
Henderson is Howard’s little rottweiler who seems to have an obsession with a McCarthyesk type ‘naming’ of those who don’t support the current government.
Pearson really annoys me, and in many ways reminds me of Albrechtsen. Both owe their current privileged circumstances to the tolerance and inclusiveness of the left, yet fire salvos towards progressives. Dicks.
Heh! Good post, Mark.
With regard to right-wing columnists not reading what they criticise, see also Jeff Sparrow’s take on Frank Devine’s recent turn: http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/11/11/455/
Thanks, weathergirl – I’m not normally a reader of Frank Devine, so hadn’t seen the column, but that quote is incredible.
Ken’s list explains why I don’t get annoyed by left-wing columnists. Apart from Horin, I don’t read any of them, and I read her because as Nick says she uses evidence and generally refrains from tiresome point-scoring.
I think the list undermines Mark’s argument about editorial decisions. For all the stories about interfering proprietors, newspapers are businesses that try to give the punters what they want. News Ltd gives Tim Dunlop a blog. Even the Herald-Sun has a left-wing columnist (I forget her name).
Column-writing is a genre, and for some reason left-wing journalists haven’t been as good at it as right-wing journalists. There probably is a large flukish element to it, but the fact that opinionated lefties have had academia as an alternative to journalism may have diminished the potential talent pool.
Yes, but Andrew, doesn’t that beg the question of why there’s a market for outrageous culture warriors on one side not the other?
I doubt any of those named by Ken are particularly influential in shaping national conversations, or as a number of people have noted, play the same political attack dog role (Ramsay probably excluded…).
Personally, I dislike the left-centre-right classification. But following common usage and using it anyway, I imagine that many of the people on the more extreme right might suggest that the majority of ABC journalists might qualify. (Just to be contrary, while I suspct that most people would probably place me somewhat right of centre on the meaningless left-centre-right classification, I actually like the ABC. In fact, I think it the best of all of the free to air television networks in Australia. Since I don’t subscribe to pay tv, I can’t comment on Foxtel.)
Andrew’s suggestion that the missing left op-ed columnists might have found alternative employment in academia is intersting. It is a bit like a market division rule. The left take one market (say academia), while the right take another market (say newspaper columns). In general, I’m not convinced that the left do dominate academia. But that might be for a couple of reasons. First, as I’ve indicated above, I don’t like like the left-centre-right classification. Perhaps this means that I simply don’t recognise who is from the left and who is from the right. Second, I’m an economist in academia. Perhaps economics is different from the rest of academia. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to test Andrew’s suggestion using cross-discipline variation. Suppose that education departments are dominated by people from the left, while economivs departments are dominated by people from the right. If Andrew’s theory is correct, we might expect to see education columnists from the right and economic columnists from the left. Is this the case? I am not that familiar with newspaper columnists, so I’ll leave that question for others to answer if they wish!!!
(Crossposted to my blog and Andrew’s blog)
Andrew Norton, you are an intellectual peanut, and not even the yummy kind baked in wasabi that I buy as a treat. You are just the run-of-the-mill peanut that should’ve be been blended with vegetable oil and turned into Savings-brand peanut butter and which can only be bought in discounted ‘family’-size portions.
He is my list of your stupidities derived from your blog post:
1) a) Lucy and Mickler define democracy as an ‘idea’ and not a political institution. Can you comprehend this? If you actually have the book, then read
b) They argue that ‘teh Conservative Right’ always attempts to conflate this idea of democracy with a particular political institution.
c) You don’t have to have the intellectual generosity (or maybe capacity?) to even appear as if you understand their point…
d) …So You Write Capitalised Letters To Make Some Vague Point About What You Think ‘most people’ Would Recognise As Democracy, Or As You Write, “something everyone believes to be A Good Thing”. From my interpretation of your half-arsed commentary it appears as if you are saying the democracy resides in the political institutions of representative government (but it isn’t clear what you actually think or are arguing), which is precisely what Lucy and Mickler argue teh Right would say!!!! You are agreeing with them!?!?!!?
Fallacy number one: you do not speak for ‘most people’ and your voice is not the voice of ‘common sense’. Get over it. Speaking as some imaginary voice of common sense may make you feel better but it actually makes you look like someone who doesn’t think for himself. Surely you can think for yourself, so why write in such an unthinking popularist way? You deploy this rhetorical trick in your (non)argument to make it appear as if you are saying something that everyone would agree with when at the very least you are not saying anything, or at worst and more likely you are actually agreeing with those you are allegedly arguing against!!
(Some more complex points for those who actually want to engage with the intellectual argument which you may or may not agree with: 1)a) Democracy is not so much an ‘idea’ either but an event in the specific sense that Derrida uses the term (different from other philosophers although similar to Deleuze’s ‘pure event’). There is always a residual — a remainder — whenever ‘democracy’ as an event is enacted. It is this kernel that forces the entire democratic project to reimagine itself so it can become more democratic. This is why democracy is forever an unfinished work in progress (yes, PROGRESS, REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS?). b) Just as there is a conservative Right there is also a conservative Left (trade unions, etc). For their respective followers they work in an attempt to distribute resources unequally through political institutions. The very political institutions themselves favour this asymmetrical distributiuon, hence the ‘democratic’ institutions are essentially anti-democratic; they forever and continually reduce the multiplicity of the event of ‘democracy’ to some easily managed ‘politics of the image’ or what is worse an ‘image of politics’.)
2)a) Team America was a shit movie. The satire was obvious. However, the ambiguity of well written satire sometimes fools people. You were fooled by Lucy and Mickler’s comments about Team America. It was a warning to help guide readers through the rest of the book.
b) It was also a trap to trip up their enemies who would read the book either with no intellectual humour or a willed stupidity. Ok, is Miranda Devine actually a satirist? Think about it…
c) Yes, humanities academics write playful arguments, most of the time they are not playing with words, but playing with the stupidity of some readers by using words.
3) Yes, the point of p.58 undermines their entire argument. Andrew Norton, you must be a genius… to have found a single point that simply undermines an entire argument written by two established academics. Now, I ask myself the question, is Andrew Norton actually a genius to have found such an obvious and fatal flaw in an argument or does he suffer from such a dire intellectual poverty and he cannot understand the argument to such a degree that he believes that a single point will actually undermine their entire argument? Of course, he speaks in the voice of ‘most people’ and ‘most people’ in this world are clearly geniuses. Well done! (Wow, I am getting the hang on teh Right’s mode of rhetoric!)
(Again some more complex points: teh conservative Right has to deploy a multiplicity of operators to counter ‘democracy’ in action and reduce it to the easily managed images we are used to seeing in ‘politics’. The various commentators that Lucy and Mickler have singled out all participate in this project in DIFFERENT ways. There is no single argument or position of teh Right. Their anti-democratic hegemonic project is being fought on a number of fronts. That is why speaking in terms of teh Right and teh Left is another (albeit sometimes necessary) stupidity, because it already reduces a multiplicity of positions to two easily managed images of politics… Who is getting this yet?)
Glen, it’s impolite to call people peanuts. Please don’t.
Damien:
Yes, and indeed probably the majority of the pundits the book takes aim at would. But it’s a category mistake. What we’re talking about here is high profile columnists who are paid to put their opinion forward.
Whether or not you believe there is “bias” in the ABC is irrelevant because even if there were, the effects of such bias would be of a very different order to the influence of high profile columnists.
Look, while we’re on the subject, can anybody enlighten me as to what it is that Piers Ackerman actually does?
Here’s a bloke who has just cost his employer $200,000 (plus costs) for yet another column apparently based on rest-room tittle-tattle, can’t even get a simple yarn on Playschool right, writes at best two columns a week, and pads out the rest of the time with a few sparse paragraphs spraying the ABC and the ALP on his so-called blog.
Other than that I’m guessing he must be paid a bog-load of money for shifting his weight from one buttock to the other.
Are these gigs advertised anywhere? I want one.
sorry mark, other LPers and Andrew.
INdeed. I admit! I am teh peanut!
Thanks, Glen.
I can’t say I’d find a peanut covered in wasabi a delicacy.
Maybe that’s just me…
Polemicists on one side attack polemicists on another… forgive my lack of generosity but it doesn’t seem worth getting too invested in. Of course, I haven’t read the book in question, so knock me down.
I have a theory, however, as to why right-wing columnists are more successful. Its because they’re read not only by the right, but also by the left… who in my experience like reading stuff that invokes both a sense of outrage and derision. Let’s face it… Bolt and the like do two things. They push our buttons
andgive us ample opportunity to strike back with gratifyingly deft blows. They never give an inch (until perhaps the cheques stop mailing), nor do we, so the saga continues… on and on and on…Mark, I’m not sure thats its a category mistake. Opinions don’t have to be expressed through newspaper columns. They can also be expressed on tv and radio. Can you remember those point of view segments by Bob Santamaria on tv years ago? (I thought they were horribly boring at the time and can’t remeber what he used to talk about. But I was a kid back then!!!)
For the record, I don’t think the ABC is particularly biased.
Certainly some ABC radio presenters do more opinion stuff than straight reportage/interviewing, Damien – but again they’re in a different category from both the op/edders and the shock jocks – they’re expected to be “balanced” and primarily to inform rather than to proselytise their own view. Even more so for ABC journos.
So I don’t think we’re talking about the same phenomenon. Perhaps its only appearance on the ABC is when the pundits themselves host shows or are guests on them – ie on Insiders, or Duffy and Adams.
Let’s not also forget that most other media are derivative of print in one way or another.
I do remember B.A. Santamaria! But that was an oddity…
Derrida is a rightwinger and I give two examples. The De Man affair and toward the end when Derrida circled back to Stirner. De Man wrote fascist polemics during WW2 and was defended by Derrida and Stirner was attacked by Marx so there you go. Most conservatives are so stupid they can’t even recognize each other. They could even be described as peanu…oh wait.
‘Can one imagine the right writing such a book against the spokespersons of the left (it would be a lot longer).’
Does anyone remember a collection called ‘Blaming Ourselves: Sept 11 and the Agony of the Left’ edited by Gregory Melleuish and Imre Salusinszky? The Contributors included Owen Harries, Peter Coleman, Chandran Kukathas, Miranda Devine and Leanne Piggott.
http://www.duffyandsnellgrove.com.au/titles/blamingourselves.htm
Jill Singer. Lindsay Tanner has a weekly (I think) slot too.
Or haven’t been given the same opportunity as right-wing journalists.
I’ve been at work so I’ve not seen this post until now. My list would be pretty much the same as Ken’s although I would definitely include Robert Manne as one of the “A” list. Ramsay is the only one I find as irritating as the left finds Andrew Bolt. Adams I find more comedic than anything, and I suspect Rupert keeps him on as some kind of pet. Bolt is a gadfly rather than a mature or intelligent commentator and is generally as predictable and shallow as those whose strings he pulls. I will be interested to see what the book has to say about him.
Tim D., I remember the book. Some good essays, generally addressing principles (e.g. Michael Warby on the ‘radical’ v. ’sceptical’ Enlightenment traditions) rather than attacks on individuals — though at last one gave Adams a fairly savage serve (which he deserved, I think, as he wrote some pretty bilious stuff right after 9/11). Andrew N. had a chapter in it as well. Required reading.
Oh my, Glenn Full-of-himself is back …
Regarding the S11 book, it included Lefties in the anthology, even some ex-commos. I was at the launch, so was David McKnight, so you’re wrong – it wasn’t a straight lefty-bashing exercise.
Game on.
Yes, an excellent anthology, Jason.
well ex-commos are well red
yeah, game on, Jason Soon. BRING IT!
Why don’t you read the book first, then you might be able to say something intelligent instead of performing such typical discursive posturing? Oh, wait, because then you’d have to spend three years reading books just to understand the argument instead of coming on here and sprouting your regular contribution of cliches.
I think teh Right is far more postmodern than any on teh Left, because the teh Right seems to forever want to participate in discussions by making contentless arguments.
(remember p. 58!!! it holds the key!)
Glen sure knocked that Andrew Norton fellow to the mat, and he deserved it! Anyways, I think it’s really important to go into bat for people who are willing to use Derridian concepts in a public forum, so here goes. I haven’t read “War on Democracy”, but the idea of a democracy that is yet to arrive is among the most important concepts in current circulation: it demands an ethical orientation towards the world and allows us to maintain a concept of progress without lapsing into the illusion of ‘arrival’.
Imagining democracy as fully established within a set of already existing institutions is a classic large-L Liberal argument, which is also deployed as an alibi for the conservative orientation of that party. It positions us all on the ‘back foot’ – against change, against the emergence of new social and political entities, against any demands for social justice. What is most frustrating about this position, however, is it’s non-correspendence with the economic policy that it shares a bed with, because neoliberalism splashes acid onto our social world. So on the one hand we see our lives transmogrified by the new demands of capital, and on the other we are not allowed to alter our institutions to address those changes.
Oh, BTW: Thanks for your non-contribution Jason. Always a pleasure.
Judging from the extracts on the publisher’s website the book is an exercise not in analysis so much as provocation. I wonder how a University Press justifies publication of such a work. However, provocation itself is, I believe, entirely legitimate, and beneficial to any cause if it’s done right.
One piece of evidence from the book is, however, quite significant. Michael Duffy burst in on a LNL conversation between Phillip Adams and Bob Ellis:
(Adams, ‘Boom’)
The book continues:
I believe that Duffy’s cri de coeur had deeper sources than that. He knows that the Left has won the culture wars where it counts and that there is no way for the Right to establish traditional hierarchies. The only dynamic element of hte Right is the New Right. But the New Right has no interest traditional hierarchies. Rather it seeks to combat populist notions of nationhood. The Old right recognise the the New Right agenda plays directly into the hands of the broad Left.
In essence, therefore, the most savage struggle is not between Right and Left, but between different strains of the Right who are fighting a clandestine war against each other.
This is immensely amusing to this contented Leftie.
As I noted on my blog, Glen misunderstood my p.58 point, which was intended to refer only to the claims about Henderson, not the book’s overall thesis. I have corrected the ambiguous wording in the original post.
That’s ridiculous, Katz. Why do you think John Howard has had 10 years as PM in this country?
p. 58! I love it! (It is what Deleuze called a ‘dark precursor’!) This is the most amusing exchange I have ever had in teh innertubes!
The walls between critical comment/argument and satire are slowing eroding. If critique and satire form two series then p. 58 has become an event that differenciates between the two. P.58 is obviously the crux of the entire universe, so Andrew Norton should not be so modest.
Perhaps I need to explain the logic of my point a little more. Any single point is never going to topple any half decent intellectual argument. This is because a half decent intellectual argument will be making MORE THAN ONE POINT. As much as Andrew Norton or whoever may disagree, Lucy and Mickler actually do provide a half decent intellectual argument. If you want to argue against that then please read the book first and don’t simply resort to stupid cliches. Maybe I was trying to do something else with the p. 58 point…?
The point Lucy and Mickler are actually making in the Henderson chapter is rather tricky.
1)a) First, it is necessary to point out that they make an unspoken assumption regarding an intrinsic link between economics and politics.
b) They note that the Sydney Institute is funded by the ‘business community’ [sic], and its executive board apparently consists of some famous business people.
2)a) Second, they note that Henderson’s byline as a columnist is Executive Director of the Sydney INstitute, and that part of his ‘authority’ is derived from this position.
b) They describe his columnist persona as an ‘hon con’ (honest conservative) and they congratulate him for attempting to write honesty. He comments honestly on political and social issues. This is another component to his authority.
3) They raise Henderson’s (alleged) email correspondence to them in which he (allegedly) states that there is “no connection” (between his ‘hon con’ political interests and the commercial interests of his ‘business community’ [sic] backers).
4) Lastly, they note that he has never seemed to mention the political or social antagonisms that belong the the ‘business community’ [sic].
5) Therefore, they ask the rather pertinent question regarding Henderson’s columns of whether the conspicuous absence of any commentary on the ‘business community’ [sic] is linked to their funding of the Sydney Institute.
To paraphrase their main point into a peanut-sized chunk: Henderson it seems is quite happy to pull apart political and social interests, but when it comes to commercial interests he is strangely silent.
(My problem with it is that it relies on proving an absence, which is nonsense (unless you are a lacanian). A better question is to ask what does Henderson do, what do his columns affirm? This is a much trickier proposition. At the very minimum, going by Lucy and Mickler’s argument, one could argue that his columns divert attention away from commercial interests of the ‘business community’ [sic].)
Oh, hang on, that wasn’t that complex at all!!?!?! Andrew Norton is caught up on the fact that Henderson seems to have NEVER have (quoting Lucy and Mickler) “commented critically on any private corporation or raised questions of accountability in the private sector at all.” So Andrew Norton agrees with Lucy and Mickler again! Wow…
(Maybe my original point about ‘p. 58′ was a satire of teh Right…)
roflicopter…
Judging from the extracts on the publisher’s website, this book is an exercise in provocation. As such, I wonder whether a University Press is entirely justified in publishing it. Not that I have anything against provocation, so long as it is done well.
However, there is one very revealing moment. It concerns Michael Duffy bursting in on an on-air conversation between Phillip Adams and Bob Ellis:
The book analyses:
This is true, so far as it goes. I believe that Duffy’s cri de coeur is an acknowledgement that the Broad Left is winning the culture wars.
Duffy understands that the Old Right cannot re-establish its beloved hierarchies. Moreover, the only dynamic segment of the right is the New Right, which has no time for the Old Right’s pieties. However, the New Right is deeply inimical to Australian populism, the one temporary weapon of advantage of the Right.
Thus the most savage element of the culture wars in Australia is not between Left and Right, but the unacknowledged, clandestine war between Old Right and New Right.
And this Leftie is very content at the difficulties of the Right.
I take it from your first outburst that you imagine your actual question to be rhetorical.
But clearly it isn’t. Apart from the Latham disaster, Howard’s majorities have been paper-thin. And the fate of the Liberals at state level is too well known to be mentioned.
Howard has achieved his success mostly by careful management of clienteles rather than changing people’s opinions about the answers to big questions. And the New Right is livid about Howard’s statism, as you well know.
The one big structural change is IR, which may just blow up in Howard’s face.
And it is notorious that many spokesmen of the Right lament the fact that despite 10 years in office no cultural revolution has occurred.
[Sorry for the double posting. I thought the first had disappeared into the ether.]
As Glen says, read the book. Its a good one. Mickler & Lucy offer readings, close readings, of the commentariat. Which is something that pretty much never, ever happens.
McKenzie Wark, your website is very flash. “Well done”, says I.
Book sounds interesting; will give it a look. I’m interested in how much “opinion” there is these days. The quality of that “opinion” varies greatly, but having no doubts about one’s opinion seems to the be the way to go if you want to hit it big as a pundit.
I’ve now read the book.
I’m not convinced by the conceptual framework, but it’s quite a good polemic – the chapter on Devine is hilarious, and the chapters on Albrechtsen and Bolt really hit the mark.
Will write a proper review in due course.
��Ҹ���—chat.qingse.info
����ž��ֲ�—chat.qingse.info
�������—chat.qingse.info
����ŵ�qq—chat.qingse.info
��������—chat.qingse.info
�������̳—chat.qingse.info
�����������—chat.qingse.info
��Ϻ�����—chat.qingse.info
����Ž���—chat.qingse.info
�������Ѽ—chat.qingse.info
����ڸ���—chat.qingse.info
��й���—chat.qingse.info
����Ű���—chat.qingse.info
�������Ѽ��—chat.qingse.info
�Ѱ�Ҹ���—chat.qingse.info
�����—chat.qingse.info
��������м�—chat.qingse.info
��й�����—chat.qingse.info
����ݸ���—chat.qingse.info
�����qq��—chat.qingse.info
�������վ—chat.qingse.info
��Ҹ���—chat.qingse.info
��й������—chat.qingse.info
�����qqȺ—chat.qingse.info
�������—chat.qingse.info
����ŵ����—chat.qingse.info
���۸���—chat.qingse.info
����Ű�����—chat.qingse.info
�������33�����—chat.qingse.info
Ahhh – I wondered how long it would be before Mark invented a sock puppet to conceal his deep seated longing for blogging. You’re not fooling anyone with the “286″ caper, Mark – that review is too insightful and intelligent to be anyone else.