Open Thread: Safe Spaces

Content Note: Rape, Banning

An open question for the Ramblites: How much of a "safe space" would you like this place to be, and how do you define that?

I want this blog to be a popular, thriving, fun place to discuss social issues and literature and media and as many pictures of cute cats as possible. I think that many of you feel the same way and share similar visions for the site.

When I first started the blog, I threw up a quick Comment Policy because I remembered previous blog concerns that people had expressed on other boards with the lack of communication towards the rules and expectations towards members and moderators. I spent all of an hour, maybe two, putting these guidelines together and they tend to be pretty vague and tend toward the "open" end.

Now that we have a pretty well-established community, I'd like to have an open discussion about what you want. There are extra-super safe spaces out there, like Shakesville, where the moderators bend over backwards to keep the triggery posts out and the good stuff in; there are less safe spaces out there where the moderators allow the triggery posts in in the name of open communication and rare ban-hammering. Both policies have their upsides and downsides.

I struggled when writing this post between giving specific examples, versus being deliberately vague and taking the risk that people might think I'm wanting to ban folks for liking Edward Cullen, and in the end I decided that specific examples are better. So specifically, what has me thinking about this issue is this post here.

This isn't meant to be a moratorium on my actions (although, hey, if it needs to be, then hit me with the clue-stick), but rather more of a staging block for looking at how the rest of you would like these situations handled in the future. Husband has pointed out to me that it's just a matter of time before we have an influx of rape apologia trolls and the like, and I want to vet with you -- in advance -- what level of banning policy you all would like (or not like) to have on the site.

I guess my biggest fear is that if the comments get too triggery, I don't want to lose all the awesome people and then have a site with nothing but trolls. That would make me VERY sad. And the fact that Disqus still does not have an Ignore button is not helping the issue.


Brin Bellway said...

It's not triggering that's the problem for me, it's that it all tends to get dull. It's boring watching the argument drag on and on, never really going anywhere, especially since they're often very similar to previous arguments.

So it's not that you'd lose me per se, but I spend flamewar-type things lurking, unsure of how to make the conversation interesting again and hoping somebody else will get the ball rolling. (I've never been good at starting conversations; I'm much better at replying.)

I'm not sure what--if anything--should be done mod-wise.

Kit Whitfield said...

My view? It's your blog, so you should do whatever is most comfortable for you. On the Slacktiverse we have to do almost everything by community consensus and be ready to revise all the fait accomplis if too many people object, but then it's not our blog the way this is yours. I reckon this is your house, your rules. Especially considering that you're doing this as a solo project and don't have any collaborators to gripe to and bounce ideas off if you find you're getting weary.

Speaking from experience, there will always be somebody who doesn't like what you do; it's a sign of having enough numbers to hit the statistical probabilities. What I think almost everybody can agree on is that we'd like this lovely blog to keep going, so if an option exposes you to the risk of burnout, you should rule it out no matter how many votes from us it gets. First thing they taught us in lifesaving class: you can't help anyone if you drown yourself.

Personally I have no problem with people being banned, and I have enough respect for your patience and sense of fairness to consider 'Because Ana's had it up to here with you' as sufficient grounds for it. If you moderate with any degree of intervention you'll get accused of wanton abuse of power no matter how you go about it, so you might as well own the fact that it's your decision and employ the advantages that gives you. If you're getting hanged anyway, you might as well steal the sheep.

Banning has advantages and disadvantages, but from a purely selfish viewpoint, I've really been enjoying the fact that we can have interesting and civil conversations in which nuance is taken for granted, and I'd be sorry to see trolls or jerks turning it into flame wars. Flame wars can be stimulating, but they do reduce the possibilities for discursive and relaxed conversation. If you went that way, you might want to consider a three-strikes rule or something similar, as insta-banning doesn't seem to fit the diplomatic style of the blog, but that'd be your call.

I've never been a fan of disemvowelling. it always strikes me as neither one thing nor the other, but the other problem with it is that it can easily be taken by the disemvowellee as a declaration of war, and hence provoke them into becoming an anti-member of the community whose mission is to Take That Bloody Disemvoweller Down A Peg Or Two, and I'm sure we all have enough headaches as it is. Machiavelli argues that if you're going to use force to squash enemy activity, you should do it too thoroughly for the squashed person to get back up and come at you again, and I think he has a point.

If you fancied a chat about it in private, I'd be happy to share whatever I've learned from administering the Slacktiverse. You know my e-mail address, right?

Izzy said...

I have no problem with banning people, actually--I'm all for it. People can be rape-apologists and abuse-defenders and men's-rights-activists on their own time and in their own blogs, and I'm not worried about you banning me for liking bits of Narnia. I don't actually like flamewars as much as I used to; I'd rather discuss things; and trying to change that sort of person seems like a waste of time.

Ana Mardoll said...

I think for me the issue is that I don't write the blog because I enjoy talking to myself; I write it because I enjoy talking to YOU (plural) and I enjoy it when you talk back. :)

(Being boring is a major concern. Sometimes I sit down to write and think, "Does anyone REALLY want to read about Twilight today??" And then I remember how crushed I'd be if Clark stopped the LB stuff, and I hope it's the same way. But YA'LL TELL ME if it gets boring. I mean it.)

And I do think that Obvious Trolls hurt dialogue because it's a tired-issue or, for some people, a spoons-issue. It's tiresome to have to read and respond. I do like your suggestion, Kit, of a 3-strikes program. And I'd not heard that about disemvoweling -- I don't think I've heard of Making Light, oddly enough -- and I think that's a good point.

Please continue to weigh in, all. :)

Will Wildman said...

In principle, I'm quite supportive of open dialogue and people being allowed to say basically whatever they like.

In practice, I really don't care about accommodating the ongoing participation of people who are espousing really vile claims that are functionally hurtful and show no signs of interest in a legitimate discussion in which they would be willing to consider that they might be wrong. (Sam Vimes' First Rule for Coppering is applicable in bascially every situation: "Never discount the possibility that you might be dead wrong.")

Basically, from what I know of you (Ana), you'd never ban someone flippantly or for a single mistake, which means that if you ever did decide to limit someone's ability to post here, it would be because the agonising decision of whether to push them out was less agonising than the distress they were causing to you and/or other posters.

If your goal is to actively engage with and try as hard as possible to rattle the dogmatic positions of those people who are most hostile to your positions (feminism, body-acceptance, et cetera), then banning is counterproductive. Conversely, I'm pretty sure your goal is actually to talk about long and delightfully overcomplicated thoughts, especially as found in books, and discuss those thoughts and others with people who are interested in having an actual enriching discussion of relative merits, there is no reason to tolerate the presence of folks who are actively and remorselessly causing distress to you or your community.

Free speech is for public fora; this is a private blog. If someone's response when you point out that they've tracked mud into your home is to say that they have a right to muddy shoes, and to keep doing it again and again, then begone with 'em. And if they say their ideas are being quashed, I can only fully express myself with a slightly obscene image meme:

Will Wildman said...

Sometimes I sit down to write and think, "Does anyone REALLY want to read about Twilight today??"

Yes. Yes I do. All of the days.

Ana Mardoll said...

First and foremost, that picture is hilarious. Is it wrong that I think Julie Andrews would approve? Because I do.

Secondly, I'm thrilled that you want Twilight because THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GETTING. Ha. :D

chris the cynic said...

So, I fled the thread that brought this up. And then, just before I read this accidentally returned to the thread, had a feeling of dread that makes no sense (because I can just hit the back button and leave) when I realized where I'd actually gone, saw that the first thing I read was something I might actually have helpful information about, had a very lengthy debate with myself about whether I should be posting in a thread I refuse to read at all (experiencing ongoing uncomfortable feelings throughout), decided to post in case no one else had the same information to contribute, and then after writing the post had more feelings of dread because what if I shouldn't be making the post and will need to come back and apologize? I'd need to check the thread so see if that turns out be the case, and that's something I definitely don't want to do. And finally hit post while having the sinking feeling that all will result in ruin for me having done so.

So, my point here, such as I have one, is that I definitely feel like things can get to be too much for some people (points at self.) That said, with the exception of ending up there because I mistakenly thought I was clicking on a link to the Narnia post (and was very interested to know what Izzy had said about Narnia) my run and hide strategy worked pretty well for me. Since it was largely confined to that one thread (though there are some lower level weird vibes coming off certain contributions to the Narnia thread as well) that didn't stop me from looking at anything else and you were definitely never in danger of losing me as a reader.

If you want to ban someone after they cross the line and set up camp on the wrong side of it, I trust that you're not going to misuse your power. If you don't want to throw on the mod hat, I personally can just steer clear of places where things get to be too much for me to deal with. I can't speak for anyone else, but whatever you decide is fine with me, largely be I have confidence that you will not suddenly turn into a dissent crushing monster.

Silver Adept said...

From what we have now, there's usually a pretty good gradient of "Wait, what?" to "Um, that might not be interpreted charitably, want to explain?" to "Okay, you've proven you're serious about this" and, then finally, "Ah, you're unrepentant and trolling. Here, have a banhammer." from the commenters and regulars here - so I'd say that the way you've been handling the threads so far has been excellent - and that the demonstrably unrepentant and unwilling to learn should probably be excluded so that they don't end up disrupting otherwise-fruitful discussions.

Kit Whitfield said...

Is it wrong that I think Julie Andrews would approve? Because I do.

I suspect she would too. I gather that even in her Mary Poppins days, she was known for her cheeky sense of humour.

And you never bore me either. :-)

Makabit said...

Ana, it's your blog, which means it is your house. You get to ban people from it.

My sense of you is that you wouldn't go around happily blocking anyone who disagrees with you, or kicking people out for liking Edward Cullen. But when you've got someone who's clearly arguing from bad faith, who isn't willing to listen to others, or be honest about what they're saying and why they say it, when you're dealing with someone who consistently hijacks threads to their own tiresome don't actually need to keep them around if they're not amusing you.

You can set clear rules if you like, give warnings, explain things...but you are not morally obligated to. If we're talking about who I think we're talking about (and not, for example, ME), I think this person has clearly suggested that s/he doesn't accept some of the basic premises of the community you're creating here.

If you had a blog where people talked about evolutionary science at a somewhat sophisticated layperson's level, and someone showed up and started a creationist argument, citing bad science, insisting that everyone else was closed-minded and ignorant and gullible for not accepting his/her ideas as equally valid with actual science, and throwing out unconnected things like "I bet you think people who go to church are real stupid, right?", and they did this REPEATEDLY, you'd have no reason not to ban this person. Your blog is about evolutionary science. There's no reason to have someone commenting who won't accept the validity of the endeavor.

I use this as an example, having seen this particular one play out at another place I comment at. But really, anything.

This is a long-winded way of saying, "Do whatever makes you happy. If we're talking about who I think we're talking about, it won't be a loss."

Inquisitive Raven said...

One problematic comment should not be grounds for banning. You might want to hand out the appropriate bingo cards though. If someone calls "Bingo" on the annoying commenter or the commenter seems intent on providing examples for every entry in the Fallacy Files, then I'd say it's time to lower the banhammer. Basically, give them time to demonstrate good faith and reading comprehension skills.

hapax said...

Honestly, I personally wouldn't be mad at you if you *did* decide to ban me because I actually believe that Edward Cullen has a certain mopey-psycho sexy appeal, and that I still find the Narnia books spiritually nourishing and don't really care at all about what happened to Susan.

I mean, this is *your* living room, and those people who keep wanting to talk about how awesome is the Dallas football? No, you are not invited to share my chips-and-dip.

But since you are apparently a much nicer person than I, and do not object to the football conversation, even when people say supportive things about Texas, so I'm not too anxious about your heavy squashing mod-foot.

And I am with Chris. Call me a coward, but there is at least active thread here that I am currently not reading. I keep thinking that I should be posting along the lines of "Behold the WRONGNESS of You!" but... not today. Maybe not this year.

Button said...


I personally don't have any triggers, but the trolls are annoying and repetitive. So I suggest a mandatory trigger warning policy in the comments.

Anyone can say what they want to say, including rape apology, but they need to post "TW: rape, rape apology, false accusations" etc. at the top of it. Triggery comments that don't contain the warning either have a warning added by the moderator, get disemvoweled, or get deleted.

That way the triggerees can skip bad threads, there's a convenient policy to point at if a troll is getting irritating, and you force the people posting these things to acknowledge that rape victims have feelings too in the very same post as their apologia!

Pthalo said...

You know where the line is. Ban the ones that cross it egregiously. Three strikes rule is good. Trolls are boring, but we don't want you to cover the place in bubblewrap either. You know the difference and we're not worried.

As for Twilight, Narnia, and Claymore...and most anything you write about really, we will happily read whatever you have to say, but if you ever feel like you're getting burned out then of course you should take a break for a little while.

We love you Ana xoxo

Pthalo said...

As for triggers, we're usually okay, despite our history. We've known people who can't read the word therapist (because it has the letters r a p i s, and t in that order in it) but we're not one of those people.* You can mention any of the Serious Stuff we've experienced and we'll be fine. Our main trigger that is relevant on the internet is "stuff written from the perspective of the abuser and/or victim blaming", well that and new agey** stuff and alternative medicine and anti vaxxers and Christmas**, but that usually just triggers a rant.

The stuff that triggers us as in "my language centers start shutting down and i get into a loop and go off googling for stuff that will trigger me even more and then spend a few days or longer having trouble with basic self care" is the abuser's perspective/victim blaming stuff. Stuff about why the abuser couldn't help himself because she was so x triggers us. I think the reason we initially found That Thread triggery was because it was topically similar enough to "stuff from an abuser's perspective."

Reading about consent play triggers us even though we get it intellectually and have no problem with the idea that other people enjoy that sort of thing, so long as they don't enjoy it in graphic detail in front of me. (Mentioning you like it is fine. not triggery the way the word "therapist" isn't triggery for me. just don't want to hear the details unless i'm in a very specific mood and even then i'll still want a trigger warning. In comparison, other details about people's sex lives don't trigger me and while I don't mind reading them, I'm not all that interested. I have my own sex life.)

For the record, since I know that a lot of survivors do find this triggery, I'd like to say explicitly that I also don't find graphic descriptions of abuse from the abuse victim's perspective triggery, and sometimes I find they set off a thought process or two in my head that helps me grok a few things about my own experiences. But then, if someone reports things their abuser said to them, and they are too similar to the stuff that was said to us, that trips the "stuff from an abuser's perspective trigger." But stuff like "he did x, and then he did y, and i tried to z, but he did q and i said w, but then he did t and I was really scared/sad/angry/terrified/numb/confused" is fine for us. Even if it's graphic.

We're not triggered by self-blame either. We can read "I think it was my fault because x, y, and z" and even if I also think it was my fault because of x, y, and z, i can write about how it wasn't your fault and the presence of x, y, or z doesn't exonerate the abuser. And that's actually helpful to us because we can't get there on our own but we can get there for someone else, and that helps us get closer to getting there on our own.

*This is, incidentally, why on survivors' forums people invariable start calling their therapists "my T" -- to make the place safe for the people who can't read the word therapist without being triggered.

**I know, I know, one of these things is not like the others. (Well, two of these things) I don't need trigger warnings for other people's religions. I can tell with 99% accuracy whether a post is going to be triggery from the title. And if it makes you feel better, sometimes I could do with a trigger warning for my *own* religion, not that there's anything wrong with my religion, twisting religious phrases to mean things that they did not mean was just another fun aspect of my bad childhood, like the prohibition against gossip was reinterpreted to mean that my soul would be destroyed if i ever talked about the abuse.

Makhno said...

> Anyone can say what they want to say, including rape apology, but they need to post "TW: rape, rape apology, false accusations" etc. at the top of it.

That's not going to happen, though, because no rape apologist (well, with a tiny handful of utterly vile exceptions) acknowledges that they ARE apologising for rape.

Kish said...

Add me to the list of people who always look forward to your posts.

I think the fact that at least two people are now actively avoiding a thread which wasn't necessarily over before someone who isn't the blog owner, seems impervious to the notion that he's doing anything wrong, and is bound and determined to fill out a Bingo card (latest hit: "you have no sense of humor or you'd see that what I said was funny") decided the thread could either be over or move to a planet where false accusations of rape happen all the time, is itself a serious problem.

Ana Mardoll said...

Honestly, I personally wouldn't be mad at you if you *did* decide to ban me because I actually believe that Edward Cullen has a certain mopey-psycho sexy appeal, and that I still find the Narnia books spiritually nourishing and don't really care at all about what happened to Susan.

Ha, you are the LAST person I want banned or bored, Hapax, because you provide the vital task of disagreeing with me on several subjects. I love getting more perspectives than just mine, so you are welcome no matter how much you want to be on Team Edward. ;)

And also, OMG COWBOYS. I like to tell people down here that they evicted me from my home in order to build that new stadium. This is technically true, although to be completely honest, I was evicted so that they could build part of the parking lot. Less interesting story.

Ana Mardoll said...

That's not going to happen, though, because no rape apologist (well, with a tiny handful of utterly vile exceptions) acknowledges that they ARE apologising for rape.

That's true, and though I appreciate the suggestion that a moderator add the warning, I'm currently the only mod here and most rape apologists are going to get very shirty when/if TWs are added. I'm reminded of Kit's upthread about stealing sheep if you're going to be hanged anyway. (Hanged? Hung?)

chris the cynic said...

Pthalo, when you talk about your past I want to offer my sympathies ... actually I want to give you a hug and have that magically make your life better. (Which is sort of irrational, but desires involving magic often are.) The thing is, if I understand correctly you've moved on, it's all in your past, and aside from the triggers you mentioned it no longer troubles you.

People treating someone as if they should be feeling something bad when they're not can, in my experience, be extremely frustrating for that person and I don't want to do that to you.

How do you feel about people offering sympathy, hugs, and whatnot?


latest hit: "you have no sense of humor or you'd see that what I said was funny"

Saw that. And I say, "Ugh."

Makabit said...

Hanged is the standard, when talking about execution. Pictures and stockings and such are hung.

Also, some gentlemen of course.

"You'll be caught, and damned well hung!"

"I think he looks..."

"Madam, please, no jests about my being pretty well hung already. We have no time."

depizan said...

As others have said, it's your home. You get to punt people out the front door when they've decided to pee on the sofa. And, while I completely missed the explosion of sofa peeing in the other thread until now, I... Well... I'll hold the door open while you toss?

*offers hugs and support*

Will Wildman said...

As regards specific tactics - I agree with Kit's point that disemvowelling is not a particularly useful technique unless it is for some reason important to keep a very public record of where a person said unacceptable things. 'Three strikes' also doesn't seem relevant - a person who gets one strike is either going to panic ("Oh Jebus, I've said something that's offended these wonderful people and now they think I'm awful, what do I do, oh sweet pan-seared archaeopteryx knickers!") or they're going to immediately push back as hard as they can and wear their strikes like Purple Hearts. I'm skeptical of the 'strikes' system as applied to children, and even more so when applied to theoretically-mature people. If a person can't summon a reasonable response to "Actually, that is harmful and we would like you to better-consider the implications of your words" then I don't see them having a more positive reaction to "And you can only do it two more times".

I'm reminded of Kit's upthread about stealing sheep if you're going to be hanged anyway. (Hanged? Hung?)

"They hung him."
"People are hanged. Meat is hung."
"Yeah? Well, he was hanged, and then he was hung."

Gelliebean said...

I was debating whether or not to post anything at all.... I don't have any major triggering subjects, and the times when I've stopped reading difficult threads (mostly elsewhere) have been more from "Geez, when is this troll gonna quit?" fatigue than from more visceral reactions. So I'm not the person whose emotional safety is most at risk, and also am not among those who should have the loudest voice in this discussion.

That being said, my opinion is that it may be more useful to look at each situation as it comes up, with a view of "know it when you see it." The harder and faster rules put into place, the more boxed in you'd be with legalism and "it's not fair!"s, and I worry that you'd spend more time than it'd really deserve trying to figure out what counts as a strike, what should be just a general warning, whether different levels of strikes should be weighted the same or differently, etc. This is your Internet home and my favorite hangout, and I'm completely comfortable with the way you've been handling everything to date. <3

chris the cynic said...

If everyone's going to be quoting things. Blazing Saddles:
They said you was hung.
And they was right.

Which I had explained to me in high school by ... well it was either a history teacher or a literature teacher, they co-taught the class. Actually they might have explained the joke together. They were a great team. Though for some reason I can only remember one of their names.

Brin Bellway said...

oh sweet pan-seared archaeopteryx knickers!

Wherever do you get such remarkable turns of phrase?

Loquat said...

Trolls? Man, I got a troll-slaying knife, it's got a +9 against trolls.

I agree with those who've already said you have no obligation to put up with jerks on your own blog. Smite them with fire and the sword as you see fit.

Ana Mardoll said...

I need to thank you all -- this was the nicest thread ever. I'm thinking about printing it off and saving it for any time I ever get blue. *hugs*

I've put up a new comment policy and I think this will work for awhile. I'm VERY concerned about ALL of you feeling safe... from me. I've been on blogs where the moderation was heavy-handed or even kind of abusive and it made me very sad and uncomfortable. Please, please, please always feel free to email me at any time if you think I need correction or changing of something I've said, because I really would not run this blog without YOU PEOPLE. You add the value -- I'm just the writer behind the curtain or whatever. :)

Brin Bellway said...

It's somewhat disturbing how easy it seems to be for him to come up with these things, isn't it? It just makes you stop and think, "How does he do that? Why can't I do that?"

I know! "Sweet" is easy enough, "knickers", okay, I might manage "archaeopteryx" if I'd read the right things recently, but pan-seared?

(Also, it was in the context of a hypothetical someone worrying that they'd messed up and now the other Ramblites would hate them forever. It's hard to hold a grudge against someone with an inner monologue like that.)

Will Wildman said...

Well, I started with the ever-popular 'Sweet Jesus' or other noun of your preference. I like drawing things out on occasion, so I've tried 'Sweet and sour Jesus' and concluded that it was both too long and not long enough. I remembered that 'Raptor Jesus' concept, and it occurred to me that if I've started with 'sweet and sour' then there's no reason not to keep up with the culinary motif, and if I'm adding raptors then I might as well throw in the whole Internet-beloved mess, which is where I got my normal go-to phrase of 'Sweet and sour pan-fried cyborg zombie raptor Jesus'.

But that's my phrase, so obviously it would not do for a hypothetical stranger. 'Sweet' stays because it's an omnipresent prefix. Raptors are out, but my brother was quite proud in our childhood of his ability to make me implode with laughter just by saying 'archaeopteryx'. I liked the 'pan' bit, but adjusted the heat level for more intensity. And then I thought: well, what sort of person would cook archaeopteryx, really? This will not do. Thus I must rely on something inherently funny to cap it off, such as underpants and the unexpected interjection of British terminology in my Canadian verbiage.

It's like asking a computer for a random number - a normal computer can't actually give you a random number, but it can take a non-random number (like the current time) and then put it through so many bizarre convolutions that it ends up looking random.

TL;DR: Thanks!

Brin Bellway said...

You're welcome. Except what with all the sweet and sour, now I'm hungry with only half an hour to bedtime. *sigh* Fine, I'll have some Goldfish. Happy now, stomach?

Pthalo said...

Thanks for sharing that, Chris. I agree, we're lucky to have each other. And now you know that when Kate talks about the three people she's dating, she means Hannah Joshua Pthalo :)

I don't tend to read all the comments at Patheos unless she (or someone else) points me at a particular thread and she doesn't read on the comments at Slacktiverse unless I point her at something interesting, so we do miss a lot of each other's posts. So I end up missing a lot of her posts over there, and she misses quite a few of mine over here, which is unfortunate because I like reading stuff she writes, but it does prevent us from derailing threads with cutesy conversations back and forth between us

Kit Whitfield said...

By the way, has anyone seen Amarie the last few days? Haven't heard from her...

depizan said...

I got a message from her on Dreamwidth yesterday.

Brin Bellway said...

By the way, has anyone seen Amarie the last few days? Haven't heard from her...

Have you been avoiding the "Stuff I Don't Want to Talk About" thread?She posted there yesterday evening. Here's a direct link.

Silver Adept said...

She's been around - she's also working up the next part of her own blog series on how Wait Until Your Married is not exactly sound advice for young Christian men and women (or anyone else for that matter). If you want to pick up the first part of her still-excellent writing, she's at:

Amarie&apos;s Dreamwidth blog.

Dreamwidth is OpenID-enabled, so you should be able to use your Disqus / Blogger / Wordpress / etc identities to leave comments without having to register for a Dreamwidth account (since I have a Dreamwidth account, I have no idea whether this process is time-consuming or not.)

</shalmeless plug>

depizan said...

And if anyone wants a Dreamwidth account, I've got some invite codes floating about somewhere.

Pthalo said...

I have invites for dreamwidth too (and if anyone wants to be lj friends or dw friends, hit me up.)

chris the cynic said...

Also, this:Sometimes I sit down to write and think, "Does anyone REALLY want to read about Twilight today??"

Yes. Yes I do. All of the days.

Post a Comment