I'm not a 'reality tv' fan but America's Got Talent is my guilty pleasure.
It may be because I grew up in a family that considered Sundays with Ed Sullivan an obligation. The variety acts that were a staple of the Sullivan show largely disappeared until AGT brought them to the fore.
I'm not certain that it is the variety acts per se but the imagination that goes into some of the acts. It is also the undeniable skill that so many people have for which their reward is a gig in the subway or at a wedding.
However, there are several elements to this show that I find deeply disturbing. Two of them come together in the child performers. One of my concerns is the children but the other is the notion that America wants/approves/demands marionette children.
Most of the kids danced. They divided up into two camps: the driven and the adorable. In fact, a pair of little dervishes called Future Funk obviously relied on cuteness. One of the pair put on a pouty face that was a trained reflex and Sharon Osbourne told that "young man" not to try to look cute.
The remainder sang. One act was made up of a pair of sisters, one in her 20s and the other about 9, who have cystic fibrosis. They're voices are mediocre but the older sister is pretty and their story is compelling. The winner was a pint-sized 'popera' diva who seems destined to become another Sarah Brightman. In fact, the child sang the Brightman cannon complete with Brightman intonation and Brightman hand gestures. I found her dislikable. She seemed robotic: too coached, too perfect and more than a bit smarmy. Watching her was a little like watching a child actress in a movie from the 40s or 50s.
While an early blooming talent is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured, should children who are so young enter into competitions with adults?
There was a nagging feeling that, perhaps, America approves of using children rather than nurturing them.
I watch no reality TV, and that includes America's Got Talent. But after I saw a clip of Jackie Evancho performing the Puccini aria, "O Mio Babbino Caro" on a news story about the show, I suddenly took notice--I was blown away by the sound coming out of that tiny body.
I agree with you, plainoldme, that she seems to have to have a somewhat robotic, overly coached demeanor in her interviews, and, while her golden locks make her appear more "angelic", I was turned off by the obvious enhancement with a peroxide bottle that contributed to the look. Judging from her pre-AGT photos, the hair color was no more "natural" than the rest of the carefully crafted persona, and I found that aspect of this child's doctored image a turn-off--10 year olds should be allowed to be children, to look like children, without artificial effects employed as marketing tools.
But this child is extraordinarily gifted. She has a gorgeous voice with a sound that is mature far beyond her years. This is "natural" talent--vocal coaching, and mimicking of Sarah Brightman can influence her style, but it can't create the rich pure sound she is capable of producing. She is a phenom, a child prodigy, and, because I was curious to hear more of her, I did watch her next two performances on AGT and I watched the finale last night to see if she would win.
Just on the basis of watching the last performances, by all of the 4 finalists, I don't feel children should be pitted against adults in competitions of this type. A good part of Evancho's appeal is clearly that her lovely voice is so unusual for someone of her age--the appropriate comparison is to other children, rather than to adults. Hearing her actually perform with Sarah Brightman last night, the mini-me Brightman more than held her own against the seasoned professional vocally, but the comparison also showed that this child is not quite ready to be a prime time headliner on a Vegas stage, or any concert stage just yet. She's talented yes, very very talented, but almost in a "freakish" way because she can emulate an adult sound, she doesn't sound like other 10 year olds--even Beverly Sills, who was one of the opera world's leading sopranos, did not sound like that at the age of 10 when she was already performing.
While people might want to listen to Evancho's pure, clear sound on a CD, I really doubt they would be equally enthralled by seeing and listening to her in live concert, for an hour or two, performing alone. She is simply not that accomplished yet as a "performer" to be able to provide the variety to hold an audience's attention. Like Charlotte Church before her, she will enjoy a lot of buzz and attention now, likely sell enough CDs to insure that her college education and future vocal training is more than paid for, and then slowly fade from public notice for the next several years until her voice and her stage presence have truly matured.
I think people might have been rooting for Evancho to win last night, just as they rooted for Susan Boyle, who garnered all the hype and attention on BGT. And neither of them did emerge the winner. While Evancho seems more naturally talented and gifted than Michael Grimm, who did win, he seems more ready to launch the sort of entertainment career that seems to be the point of this competition. If the best talent didn't win, the more appropriate one did, and Evancho got all she needed to get out of her stint on AGT. Let this 10 year old grow up, she isn't yet ready to compete in the real world of entertainment, against equally talented adults. And her marvelous vocal instrument can be ruined if it isn't carefully cared for in the coming years. Her parents have to be cautious about destroying this natural gift with overly ambitious, and premature, career moves.
Other than the dubious opportunity to provide them with publicity and attention, I'm not sure AGT should have children competing with adults. While we can marvel at exceptionally talented children, they should be competing in venues with other children, if we have them competing at all. Performing and competing are not quite the same thing. These children can entertain us with occasional performances, but, even the very talented Jackie Evancho, really isn't ready to compete with the real Sarah Brightmans of the world--she just does a good imitation for a 10 year old. And it's more than somewhat unfair to adult performers to have them compete with a talent that is a "novelty" simply because it it is displayed by a child.
Some day, when she has at least finished high school, I hope that Jackie Evancho does stun the world with a magnificent voice--a magnificent adult voice.
What a great essay! Thank you so much for you thoughtful and thought provoking reply.
The young contestants on this show for this season were talented. Most of them cried when they lost. It is difficult for children as young as five (the youngest this season) to perform on national television to justified acclaim including standing ovations, then to lose to adults. While some of the adults cried, nearly all the children and younger teens did.
The children of a former neighbor were athletic and competed in contests with kids their own age. Once, while she was telling me about their events, another woman came up and, without assessing the situation, started in on how children should not be pushed. My neighbor looked a bit hurt (I did not think she pushed her kids. Her husband was a golf pro, so there is a genetic inclination as well as a home environment that makes athleticism natural.) and said, "I think it is good for kids to be good at something."
Except for the interloper's lack of tact, both women are right. It is good for a children to explore their talents and to learn what they are good at and just how good they are. A wise parent supports a child in his quest for his talent but support is not pushing, it is not stage mothering and it is not entering them into competitions (like beauty pageants or adult talent shows) where they can be crushed.
Several of the high schools in suburban Boston have excellent theatre programs. The kids put on great shows and many have great talent. But, those kids range in age from 14 to 19. I wonder what happens to pint-sized prodigy like Jackie who, whether she is in private or public school, returns to the world of peers and becomes part of the high school music and drama department. Would she fit in? Would she be resented?
Speaking of prodigies, a musician friend has a talented son. She had instruments in the home but never insisted on lessons. At 12, her son picked up the fiddle and was playing very well after 6 months on his own and with some lessons from a friend of mom's. He played in the school spring concert. After the dress rehearsal, he came home and told his mother that the teachers said he was a prodigy. She told him that he was but that he should not say it. "Let other people praise you." I thought that was wisely handled.
Two of the young female contestants, a 12 year old and a 9 year old, cried when they eliminated. The older of the two girls is an amazing ballroom dancer. She slipped that day and, as she cried, it was apparent that she is a perfectionist who makes high demands on herself. The judges . . . hardly people with reputations for tact and decorum . . . commented on the "little girl," in this case, the 9 year old, crying. Of course, she cried! She is a "little girl!" To have progressed through several weeks of performances then to be deprived of victory is difficult.
Just an aside, I am glad Michael Grimm won. He fits the profile of the sort of entertainer this type of program "seeks." Besides, he seems to be about 30 which is a much better time of life to launch a career.
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 10:32 pm
@firefly,
I don't have broadcast tv. I watch programs thanks to hulu and my computer.
I just finished watching the finale and found it interesting that Sarah Brightman said what I have been thinking: that Jackie needs to preserve her voice.
I'm not a 'reality tv' fan but America's Got Talent is my guilty pleasure.
It may be because I grew up in a family that considered Sundays with Ed Sullivan an obligation. The variety acts that were a staple of the Sullivan show largely disappeared until AGT brought them to the fore.
I'm not certain that it is the variety acts per se but the imagination that goes into some of the acts. It is also the undeniable skill that so many people have for which their reward is a gig in the subway or at a wedding.
However, there are several elements to this show that I find deeply disturbing. Two of them come together in the child performers. One of my concerns is the children but the other is the notion that America wants/approves/demands marionette children.
Most of the kids danced. They divided up into two camps: the driven and the adorable. In fact, a pair of little dervishes called Future Funk obviously relied on cuteness. One of the pair put on a pouty face that was a trained reflex and Sharon Osbourne told that "young man" not to try to look cute.
The remainder sang. One act was made up of a pair of sisters, one in her 20s and the other about 9, who have cystic fibrosis. They're voices are mediocre but the older sister is pretty and their story is compelling. The winner was a pint-sized 'popera' diva who seems destined to become another Sarah Brightman. In fact, the child sang the Brightman cannon complete with Brightman intonation and Brightman hand gestures. I found her dislikable. She seemed robotic: too coached, too perfect and more than a bit smarmy. Watching her was a little like watching a child actress in a movie from the 40s or 50s.
While an early blooming talent is a wonderful thing and should be nurtured, should children who are so young enter into competitions with adults?
There was a nagging feeling that, perhaps, America approves of using children rather than nurturing them.
I have not seen that show,
but the same as anyone else, children shoud DO what thay decide to DO, careerwise.
I glimpsed a semi-news show wherein it was said that
a young male adult beat out a very young girl singer, to everyone 's shock.
It was speculated that the judges decided to STOP her,
to censor her, based on her age,
from getting a Las Vegas show.
IF so, then the judges CHEATED.
0 Replies
firefly
2
Reply
Fri 17 Sep, 2010 12:30 am
@plainoldme,
Quote:
I just finished watching the finale and found it interesting that Sarah Brightman said what I have been thinking: that Jackie needs to preserve her voice.
I also found Brightman's comments very revealing. She was probably the only one who didn't gush about what a "big star" Jackie was going to be. She clearly said that Jackie needs to preserve and save her voice and just enjoy her life. In other words, be a kid, enjoy a life without pressure right now, don't force the vocal development, and put a major career on the back burner for now. At least that's what I read into her comments.
Jackie does have a vocal instrument that can be damaged by misuse and overuse. To ruin it, by trying to cash in on her sudden fame, and pushing her too far too fast, would really destroy her chances for a brilliant long range career as an adult. She seems to have so much potential, it would really be a shame to see that happen. It would also be a shame to see her emotionally overwhelmed by having to shoulder career demands she's not prepared to handle. So many child stars wind up as casualties.
I think that Jackie's father even said something about feeling "relieved" that his daughter didn't win. Maybe Jackie herself felt relieved. She wasn't one of the kids who cried when she didn't hear her name announced. She must have been under enormous pressure for the past several weeks, not just from the competition, and the constant practicing, but from the buildup of intense publicity that focused on her. With all her comments about "wanting to live my dream", maybe she did just want to go home, and play with her ducks, and go back to school, and just be a 10 year old.
She still has to do the AGT tour, but, once that's over, she doesn't have to give up her childhood for a singing career right now. She can perform occasionally, but without the demands and stress of trying to keep herself in the spotlight in order to capitalize on her sudden fame and earning power. If her parents are smart, they will pay attention to what Sarah Brightman said.
I just finished watching the finale and found it interesting that Sarah Brightman said what I have been thinking:
that Jackie needs to preserve her voice.
firefly wrote:
I also found Brightman's comments very revealing. She was probably the only one who didn't gush about what a "big star" Jackie was going to be. She clearly said that Jackie needs to preserve and save her voice and just enjoy her life. In other words, be a kid, enjoy a life without pressure right now, don't force the vocal development, and put a major career on the back burner for now. At least that's what I read into her comments.
I don 't know who "Sarah Brightman" is; I infer a judge ??
I infer that the young girl that I mentioned is named "Jackie" ?
If, indeed, judges denied a competing singer OSTENSIBLY ON THE MERITS
denied her success in the contest, then the judges were corrupt,
the same as if thay had been bribed, if thay did it to interfere in her personal life or in her career.
IF so, the judges ALSO ` cheated the AUDIENCE,
who listened expecting an honest evaluation of singers on their own merit.
Is this reminiscent of the scandal of the $64,000 Question ?
Too many singers in pop, rock and folk music who have good instruments ruin them because they don't know how to sing properly. It's a shame. A drummer friend and I were talking about how when Joan Baez became aware of no longer being able to hit some formerly comfortable notes, she took voice lessons. A good voice teacher can help a singer protect the voice.
Jackie has a voice teacher. She sings in a children's choir. She needs to listen to Sarah Brightman's remark. I thought it was a tactful warning.
0 Replies
plainoldme
2
Reply
Fri 17 Sep, 2010 06:18 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Sarah Brightman is the former wife of composer Andrew Lloyd Webber (Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita and more). He composed the score for Phantom of the Opera for her. She originated the female lead, Christine.
The judges did not stop Jackie, the 10 year old singer. After the semi-finals, the celebrity judges had no say in the matter. Finalists and the winner were selected by the general public, who voted by phone and text messaging.
You never seem to know things that have been part of the international discussion for years and years.
And, you seem to know nothing about the human voice and its delicacy.
No one would do this little girl a favor if they were to allow her to sing with training or to sing too frequently. It is a parent's responsibility to protect a child.
Your idea of freedom is license. What would happen if this very young girl did ruin her voice? Do you think she would make the "I coulda been a contender. Ya shoulda taken care of me!" as a middle aged woman?
You are probably going to write that you don't recognize those lines. They're from Elia Kazan's On The Waterfront, a film which starred a young Marlon Brando.
f the judges cheated THIS TIME,
then how many other times will thay cheat in the FUTURE, and for WHAT undisclosed reasons ???
Stop ranting. You are embarrassing yourself. This is a television reality show and the judges are English tabloid editor Piers Morgan; Sharon Osbourne, the wife of punk rocker Ozzie and Howie Mandel. While you probably know none of them, you can google them.
I would never accuse them of being sincere. They are show biz folks.
What would happen if this very young girl did ruin her voice? Do you think she would make the "I coulda been a contender. Ya shoulda taken care of me!" as a middle aged woman?
You are probably going to write that you don't recognize those lines. They're from Elia Kazan's On The Waterfront, a film which starred a young Marlon Brando.
POM you crack me up - I always look to see what you've written overnight (my night) - you frequently provide my first chuckle of the morning.
I watch these shows on occasion as my daughter likes them. She's very musical and though I have no idea what channel or time they're on myself, if she's watching it, I'll wander through and sit down and watch. I'm often amazed at the level of talent I see 'regular' people displaying.
This little girl is someone I hadn't seen before I watched the clip that Firefly posted. And truth be told, while I can't deny her obvious talent and am amazed by her voice- I was also a little freaked out by the whole thing. I couldn't watch it comfortably- I kept wanting to click away from it. Not that she wasn't doing a good job, it was just so unnatural to hear that voice coming from that small body. It was almost disconcerting- like when the deep male voice comes out of Linda Blair's twelve year old female body in the Exorcist.
And I'm not saying it's that weird or evil - but I also can't say that I enjoyed it without reservation.
But at least she wasn't a five year old with a hairsprayed bouffant and dressed in a rodeo mini dress swinging her lasso and singing 'Stand By Your Man' in a put-on adult like voice. That sort of thing makes me want to throw up.
But I think I have a particular thing about kids being kids. I don't like to see them dressed up as sexualized beauty queens and even that little kid who plays Tracy Morgan's son on 30 Rock bugs me because he acts like a too big for his britches mini adult. Even though it's acting - it bugs me.
But again, this girl is not the same sort of thing. She was very appropriately dressed and mannered for her age.
And when you love to sing, you have to sing. I doubt her parents pushed her. They probably couldn't keep her from it if their lives depended upon it. I think that's true about a lot of gifts, at least those that are true and obvious gifts.
The gift has chosen the person - the person hasn't chosen the gift.
Sarah Brightman is the former wife of composer Andrew Lloyd Webber (Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita and more).
He composed the score for Phantom of the Opera for her.
She originated the female lead, Christine.
The judges did not stop Jackie, the 10 year old singer.
After the semi-finals, the celebrity judges had no say in the matter.
Finalists and the winner were selected by the general public,
who voted by phone and text messaging.
I chanced to get a fleeting glympse of an entertainment news show
that mentioned that a 10 year old girl singer had been beaten out
by a young adult male, allegedly to everyone 's shock.
There was speculation that the judges did it to prevent her
from getting a $1,000,000 Las Vegas show allegedly because
thay deemed her age to be not "ready", regardless of the merit
of her voice. Maybe this was another show; 2 different girl singers; I dunno.
plainoldme wrote:
You never [ ?? ] seem to know things that have been part of the international discussion for years and years.
Maybe; there r many things that hold little interest for me. I am discriminating. I can live with that.
plainoldme wrote:
And, you seem to know nothing about the human voice and its delicacy.
True; I 've not paid much attention to that. I 've never taken voice lessons.
I used to date some opera singers and wanna-be opera singers,
but I did not pay much attention to their singing lessons.
plainoldme wrote:
No one would do this little girl a favor if they were to allow her to sing with training or to sing too frequently.
It is not a judicial function to DO FAVORS.
Judges are supposed to judge the quality of singing,
in this instance.
plainoldme wrote:
It is a parent's responsibility to protect a child.
Was she the judges' daughter ??????
It is a judicial function to judge the merits of a competition
or dispute that is brought before the judges, NOT to "protect"
anyone, nor to be affected in judgment by extraneous considerations
that are not in evidence. To be affected by matters
that are not in evidence within the record, is CORRUPT.
It is treachery; it is unprofessional.
plainoldme wrote:
Your idea of freedom is license.
That only means that u abhor freedom
and that u wanna rape people out of THEIR freedom, unless u happen to APPROVE of that specific freedom.
plainoldme wrote:
What would happen if this very young girl did ruin her voice?
I dunno; rehabilitation ????
plainoldme wrote:
Do you think she would make the "I coulda been a contender.
Ya shoulda taken care of me!" as a middle aged woman?
That was addressed to his BROTHER, not to his boxing JUDGE,
if I remember accurately.
plainoldme wrote:
You are probably going to write that you don't recognize those lines.
Is THAT the probability ????
plainoldme wrote:
They're from Elia Kazan's On The Waterfront, a film which starred a young Marlon Brando.
I remember the show.
I supported and still eagerly support Kazan's stance with the HUAC.
He did the right thing.
f the judges cheated THIS TIME,
then how many other times will thay cheat in the FUTURE,
and for WHAT undisclosed reasons ???
plainoldme wrote:
Stop ranting.
I 'll say whatever I damn well please, whether u like it or not.
plainoldme wrote:
You are embarrassing yourself.
I remain in charge of my dignity, not u.
I don 't feel in the slightest embarrassed.
I ratify and re-assert my elocutions.
plainoldme wrote:
This is a television reality show and the judges are English tabloid editor Piers Morgan; Sharon Osbourne,
the wife of punk rocker Ozzie and Howie Mandel. While you probably know none of them, you can google them.
I would never accuse them of being sincere. They are show biz folks.
I'm glad to crack you . . . or anyone else up . . . I do try to be funny. I should say that the American political climate is not conducive to humor, so, my hat is off to Jon Stewart and David Letterman and Stephen Colbert and anyone else who can wring a laugh out of it!
Firefly, you and I are all in agreement about this little girl being talented but somehow. . . here, I am stumped . . . just so able to create discomfort in her audience.
Yes, she is appropriately dressed for her age. In the last couple of shows, they showed highlights of the finalists, including Jackie, who was picking out clothes. What could be more exciting for a girl of that age, a definitely feminine little girl, than to be put into the hands of a television designer and shown racks of pretty clothes. Furthermore, she is a pretty child.
You and I both love music and you seem to go to concerts. I went to hear John Sebastian of the Lovin' Spoonful at Club Passim, Cambridge, MA, sometime in the 1990s. The man has an engaging personality and his music is part of many people's lives. He has no voice left. Many other singers of his generation are in the same predicament.
Julie Andrews lost her voice because she was improperly treated by a doctor. On the other hand, Roseanne Cash . . . who developed polyps on her vocal chords during a pregnancy. . . was treated by a doctor who recognized that the increased hormones of a pregnancy often cause vocal chord polyps. He recommended that she rest her voice until the polyps disappeared on their own. Levon Helm developed throat cancer but insisted on chemotherapy rather than surgery to preserve his voice. Patti Lupone originated the role of Evita but the score is so challenging that during the 19 months she played the part, she used her voice only for the stage and did not talk.
I am just talking too much about voices!
∆ A delta to show change of direction! Anyway, the little biographical sketch run on wiki (how about being in wiki at 10!) said that Jackie began singing along to the score of Phantom of the Opera. Her mother noticed her gift . . . how could she have missed it?!
That reminded me of one of my daughter's friends, a girl she has known since both were of them were in kindergarten (they're 32). The friend, who I will call "A," auditioned for a role in Annie when she was in first or second grade. I remember her mother's surprise. "She has stage presence," A's mother said. "A" went on to Interlochen, the music camp, along with Jewel and AGT's John Quale, aka Prince Poppycock. Today, she is an opera singer, living in NYC.
"A's" mom didn't push her, just supported her.
∆ YEah, I amazed at the amount of talent regular people show. That is the appeal of AGT: allegedly showing people who live next door who have amazing imaginations and incredible talent. There were some gifted singers on the show. Now, the show does make them a little more folksy than they are as it subscribes to the rags-to-riches philosophy. John or Poppycock was described as a store clerk. That's probably honest but he went to Interlochen as a teenager and majored in music in college.
Another bit of disingenuousness on the part of the show: one of the illusionists has been working in Las Vegas as a magician. But, even at that, there is a difference between bottom of the market shows and headliners.
The first of your posts following Aidan's is just a little weird with its disingenuous commentary on judging for a purely show biz entertainment in terms of legal judging. But, I am going to ask you to drop it.
I will, however, comment on things that don't interest you that you ask about almost like an obsession.
Even if you are not interested in the musical stage, to not recognize the name Sarah Brightman seems weird. Now, that it is not a sign of being cultured or intellectually superior. I think it is a sign of how isolated you are. She's now 50 and has been a professional since she was 21. Frankly, she has been a star and a joke, depending upon how you feel about what she does. The fact is, however, that she sells millions of recordings, has been in major theatre productions, starred in numerous television shows and sells out in her concerts.
I am not a fan of hers but it is difficult to ignore her!
I don't have broadcast tv.
I watch programs thanks to hulu and my computer.
What is that ??
I seem to remember (vaguely) that was a dance.
plainoldme wrote:
I just finished watching the finale and found it interesting that Sarah Brightman said what I have been thinking:
that Jackie needs to preserve her voice.
Don 't we all ?
David
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
0
Reply
Sat 18 Sep, 2010 11:49 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
The first of your posts following Aidan's is just a little weird
with its disingenuous commentary on judging for a purely show biz
entertainment in terms of legal judging.
That 's the only judging I know.
I 've never judged a pie-baking contest, nor a dog show.
plainoldme wrote:
But, I am going to ask you to drop it.
Maybe
plainoldme wrote:
I will, however, comment on things that don't interest you
that you ask about almost like an obsession.
Which obsession ?
plainoldme wrote:
Even if you are not interested in the musical stage,
to not recognize the name Sarah Brightman seems weird.
I am not obsessed with Ms. Brightman.
I just found out about her existence.
plainoldme wrote:
Now, that it is not a sign of being cultured or intellectually superior.
I think it is a sign of how isolated you are.
U want me to de-isolate ??
How is my personal situation germane to this topic ?
plainoldme wrote:
She's now 50 and has been a professional since she was 21.
Frankly, she has been a star and a joke, depending upon how you feel about what she does.
I don 't feel anything about it.
plainoldme wrote:
The fact is, however, that she sells millions of recordings,
not to me
plainoldme wrote:
has been in major theatre productions, starred in numerous television shows and sells out in her concerts.
I wish her continued success.
plainoldme wrote:
I am not a fan of hers but it is difficult to ignore her!
That has not proven difficult in my experience.
David
0 Replies
OmSigDAVID
0
Reply
Sat 18 Sep, 2010 11:59 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
That you do not feel embarrassed is a tragedy.
For whom? For youm ?
plainoldme wrote:
Furthermore, if you know nothing about this conversation,
why did you log on and contribute?
As I already indicated,
I saw a fraction of a very brief snippet of an entertainment news show
wherein speculation was expressed (if I heard this accurately) that an adult male singer
had beaten out a ten year old girl singer to everyone 's shock,
based upon the judges desire to prevent her from getting
a $1,000,000 Las Vegas show because thay thawt that she was too young,
in disregard of their judicial duty to honestly judge the merits
of the singers' performances. That struck me as being shockingly immoral.
I judicial knife in the back, worthy of comment.
plainoldme wrote:
There is a nosy feeling to your contribution.
O, NO!! That 's not ALLOWED on A2K.
I think its in the Terms of Service.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace