Melissa Westmoreland: Too Hot for Publication!
Some of you may have noticed that my weekly column did not appear in the school paper this this week. The column I penned for this week was deemed a "conflict of interest", as it dealt with issues within Student Government, of which I am a Senator.However, a news article entitled SGA Meeting Erupts with Racial Tensions was published, laying out the basic issues in a very well-written and unbiased way. Since the issues are now out in the open, I would still like to publish the column I had intended to run this week here on my blog. I would ask that you all help me spread the word about what is REALLY going on in Student Government. Our rights are being threatened, and the students deserve to know that truth. If you agree with me on this issue and you have a blog, please post and link this column! Thank you!!
The rights to vote and speak your mind may be endangered freedoms in our own Student Government
I’ve spent the better part of my four years here trying to get more students involved in on-campus activities and student organizations. Chalk it up to my Type A personality, but I have never been able to understand why a student wouldn’t want to make the most out of their time here. However, after the last few weeks at Student Government Association meetings, I am beginning to understand.
For those of you who don’t know, the validity of the SGA elections had been contested due to the fact that no graduate students were able to vote. Based on this information, a motion was made at last week’s meeting to hold new elections. Of course, there was a great deal of debate over the issue, mostly concerning the specifics of the election. Eventually, it was decided that the election would be re-opened for all students, since the issue was the election process and not the results.
I can’t say the amount of debate surprised me, as pretty much all SGA issues are carefully considered and discussed before their decision. What surprised and bothered me was the nature of some of the arguments. Rather than showing concern that a few thousand students had been left out of elections, several SGA members accused those students of “not caring” enough about SGA to event warrant receiving a vote. Opponents of new elections actually argued that “if those students wanted to vote, why aren’t they [coming to SGA meetings]?”
According to this argument, I suppose the US Congress should take away the vote from everyone who’s not willing to watch C-Span every day. Clearly, there were graduate students who DID care to a point, since we know that some tried to vote and discovered they could not. To me, the fact that they aren’t willing/able to actively participate in a Student Government meeting does not negate the fact that they should have the right to vote.
Among the people who were against new elections was our very own SGA Vice-President Donald Hughes, who argued that, according to SGA Election Guidelines, anyone who was unable to vote should have given written notice to the Elections and Publicity Chair within 48 hours of the election. This completely ignores the fact that most students in this school who do not participate in SGA (and even some who do) would not know the specifics of the Election Guidelines. How would those disenfranchised students know the exact procedure they were supposed to go about to regain their voting rights? Of course, to be fair, Hughes’ track record on fair voting rights isn’t so great: at the last meeting before Spring Break, he completely rejected a motion to extend elections for 36 hours, so that the first-year students who had been unable to vote for the first 36 hours of the election could have a fair amount of time to do so.
Luckily for all of you, the majority of the Student Government IS concerned about the rights and voices of students, and the motion to hold new elections was passed with a safe majority. Soon after this motion was passed, however, another basic right was touched upon by SGA. Senator Larry Watson stood and addressed the fact that some SGA members had been writing negative things about the group in their blogs, and that these people were, basically, calling all African-American members of SGA “ignorant”. He then used this opportunity to use the N-word several times, saying that is what the blogs are essentially saying. Hughes then took that opportunity to read from some of the blogs, and to say that he was going to take the negative blogs to Student Conduct and let them handle the situation.
Call me crazy, but I always assumed that freedom of speech was protected by the Constitution. Those students have just as much right to write about SGA in their blogs as all of you have to write about me. In fact, if we’re suddenly going to start taking all negative blogs to Student Conduct, then quite a lot of my readers are going to be in trouble. One blogger in particular has called me a “stupid pirate hooker.” Now, I suppose the “stupid” part could just be an opinion that I’ll let slide, but last time I checked, I am neither a pirate nor a hooker. I can’t wait to bring THAT one to Student Conduct.
The point I’m trying to make here is that the Internet, right now, is probably the most popular venue of free speech. Issues that would normally be written in a letter to the editor are now “blogged”. Because people know that their views will be published through this method regardless of what they write, they are likely to make opinions seem like facts. Also, blogs are usually open to public comments, and anyone who had a problem with what was written could have commented and defended their point-of-view.
Ironically, for the past couple months, VP Hughes has been trying to get more non-SGA members to come to meetings. Senior Christopher Biggers attended his first SGA meeting that very night, and he was completely turned off by what he witnessed. “This is the most unprofessional thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” he told me while Hughes complained about the blogs. “Why are we bringing up [personal] issues in SGA?”
The goal of SGA is to conduct business that will benefit the students of UNCG. Both VP Hughes and Senator Watson were correct in saying that people who have issues with them should address them in person, but they did not follow their own advice by bringing up these issues during a meeting. I know that SGA is full of people who truly care about the university, the students, and the organization itself, and UNCG is lucky to have these people. Hopefully, with their help, SGA will be able to get back on track, and continue to work for the good of UNCG.
posted by Melissa @ 3:43 PM
38 Comments:
Hi Melissa. I posted a small post on your column over at the SRAC blog.
I'll link to it on mine too.
There's a huge difference between the column being "too hot" and it being a conflict of interests (you wouldn't believe how many columns I've had to leave unwritten or unpublished over the years for the same reason) - but a blog post is a blog post.
So mediation is tonight. If it doesn't work out, as I suspect it won't(especially with Missy's flame-fanning efforts), are you guys still down for overthrowing SGA? I'm buying face paint this weekend. I'm thinking we should relieve e
veryone of their duties and disband SGA meetings. Then we should declare SGA null and void until they issue a written appology for being so petty. Then, and only then, will the junta (us) consider whether or not to reinstate the SGA.
Maybe we should just disband the Senate though, the House seems to be getting along fine.
We can call for boycotts of the elections until we get our appology too.
Do you guys have fatigues?
Do I still get to be the Provincial Governor of the Campus, Patrick?
I want to be propaganda minister.
I'd like to add my confusion about what exactly the conflict of interest is with Melissa's article? It doesn't really make sense.
I called the Carolinian today and bitched for quite a while about the inaccuracies in the latest front page story. Why can't they ever get their facts right? That article makes it look like I was cursing at people on my blog and using the n word or something. Donald wasn't talking about my blog when he brought up cursing.
When we overthrow the government, we need to "adopt" the Carolinian and WUAG into the new propaganda department. It'll be doing them a favor.
Matt,
Thanks for your help.
Joe,
It's called a joke. I was sort of doing a take off on the "too hot for tv" thing... you know, it takes a lot to get noticed in this Girls Gone Wild generation. But other than that, thanks for the post.
John,
Holy crap, I agree with you. And I had that exact same argument with my editor. However, the Carolinian Code of Ethics specifically say writers may not write about a group they are a part of. I think it's a stupid rule, but I guess I can't do anything about it.
Patrick,
Flame-fanning efforts? I didn't even talk tonight! Okay, I did, but that's because my mediation group elected me as "scribe".
And do you seriously think I DON'T have fatigues? That's the first thing they issue you when you register Republican. And I want a title in the new government. Just something that might look nifty on my law school applications.
Sam,
Yeah, it's written in the Code of Ethics that I can't write about a group I'm a part of. It was something I wasn't quite sure of, until it was too late to publish something different. I still take serious issue with it, however. I mean, my editor told me he thought it was a GOOD thing to raise awareness about these events, and that he was thinking about doing an article about it and urging people to be more involved. I told him, who would be more effective, the girl who sits through hours and hours of SGA meetings every week, or the random guy who's never been to a meeting, but still thinks it's a "good idea" to do so?
God knows I'm grasping at straws when I quote John Rouse, but he said it right the first time: "Who else is there on campus who has the knowledge to intellegently comment on the proceedings of SGA except for its members and officers[?]"
"...Who else is there on campus who has the knowledge to intelligently comment on the proceedings of SGA...?"
You mean Westy?
Well, she can comment I suppose...
You can be the Sergeant at Arms Melissa. Do you have a gun?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The code of ethics at the Carolinian used to be more vague on this subject - and except in obvious and blatant cases it's at the discretion of the editor and the editorial board...but we had a bit of trouble when that was the case. They've since been re-written. It's true that elected officials sometimes write op-eds for newspapers. And they should.
But Melissa writes a regular, weekly column for us. She did this before she was involved with SGA. Our regular columnists aren't supposed to write about groups of which they're a part because it calls into question whether they're writing what they're writing for us or to promote their group, because they think it needs to be written and we agree or to make some sort of political maneuver. Melissa has a weekly forum as a columnist that isn't available to people who might oppose her group or might, within that group, simply disagree with her. The rule is in place to keep people from using their column to reach masses of people about their group (and their opinions about their group) that others simply don't have. We've bent this rule for Melissa in the past - and other writers, when we thought it was necessary. But in this case Melissa isn't just a member of the SGA. She is, herself, pretty embroiled in this controversy. I can't see an argument I could provide to Donald Hughes for why he shouldn't get equal space to write about his side of it if she gets it. And this friend of his. And someone else who opposes this view. And every other freshman senator who, because they've been in SGA for a semester, can make the argument their opinions are informed and there's no conflict of interests. Gotta draw the line somewhere - and in the case of the Collegiate Associated Press it is, outside of special circumstances, with preventing people from writing about groups to which they belong.
I'm not sure what Luke would say (jump in here, Luke) but I think that even if Melissa weren't part of the SGA she'd be awfully close to this thing and so personally involved with it that it'd be a difficult call on whether to let her use her column to talk about an SGA controversy in which she's played no small part. If it was something she was into with a group that wasn't an affiliated student organization, if a lot of personal friends and enemies weren't involved...that'd be an easier call. It's not always easy. On this one I have to back Luke.
Also - I served as an SGA senator for a semester as a sort of experiment. In that time I wrote no SGA news and the few columns I filed about SGA carried that disclaimer. It was a special agreement with the then-opinions editor to see what would happen.
What happened was that I felt I was better informed and better able to write in an intelligent, fair, interesting way about the group when I wasn't a part of it but was simply coming to the meetings to write about it.
That's how most better columnists do it.
When I was in high school (only a year ago) I was involved with 8 different groups at the school, including the high school newspaper. I also could not write about groups I was in, whether I was an officer or a just simply a member. I remember the 4 years I was in staff, my advisor strictly enforcing that rule and adhereing to it.
Same applies here.
While I understand and see Melissa's point, from a journalistic stand point, one should not write about a group they are involved in, regardless if its a column or not.
Jumping in: Joe did a pretty thorough job of explaining the rule. If anyone has a specific question, feel free to contact me or ask on here.
All right.
That made milk come out of my nose.
I just threw up.
John:
I don't think it's a bad idea to have people who are interested in and knowlegable about but not directly embroiled in concflicts like this examining them critically. Hours-long SGA meetings and blog-post fits have already become a regular feature of this current mess. Organizing some sort of point/counterpoint on the SGA thing in the Opinion section might not be a bad idea but Melissa's a weekly columnist who's also involved in a student organization and has personal friendships and adversarial relationships with a number of the principles. Even if it weren't for the membership in the organization I'd think Luke would have to think very carefully about letting her use her column to weigh in on this for that reason.
John: You're misunderstanding the rule. Staff of The Carolinian are not allowed to write about any organization in which they are a member.
It could be a club, it could be SGA, it could be your afterschool job at McDonald's. If you are a member of the organization then it opens up the opportunity for an ulterior motive, and that is the conflict of interest.
If, as Joe already mentioned, Melissa had wanted to do a point/counterpoint on the issue then it would have been a different situation. That wasn't the case, and the couterpoint to Hughes wouldn't automatically default to Melissa anyway.
I did the same thing when Melissa wanted to write about the debates but was President of the College Republicans. The CRs and CDs each picked a representative and wrote their final thoughts on the debate, which were then presented together.
No ethical editor would have presented Melissa's column and simply waited for the backlash of letters from Hughes' side. That's adsurd.
It's painfully clear why the column was not printed. Melissa, as an SGA Senator, is in the middle of a debate in SGA. She can't use her column to support her side of the debate. As an SGA Senator she stands to gain from the column being printed. That is a conflict of interest. Period.
I've turned away several letters to the editor in the past couple weeks because they were simply promotions for a group event. If you want to buy an advertisemant, talk to Chet. Self-promotion in any form is not fit for the Opinions section.
And if by "people who neither run nor fund the Carolinian" you mean the editorial board that controls all content and advertising, then you are correct. If by "short-sighted rule" you mean the rule that is drafted word for word from the Associated College Press Model Code of Ethics, also present in the Associated Press Managing Editors Statement of Ethical Principles, then you're just on a roll.
I think he meant the Collegiate Associated Press as people who don't run The Carolinian.
He's right about that.
But we do try to run the paper according to their guidelines, except where our guidelines supercede them or, very occasionally, we make a decision to deviate as we did with the debates.
John:
You, with your experience, cannot possibly believe the best qualified people to talk about SGA are SGA senators. I was reporting on SGA for about two years straight and in that time I saw almost the entire membership of the SGA - and all of the most important positions - change. As a reporter who just showed up to meetings and talked with SGA senators I was infinitely more conversant in the rules, history and culture of the SGA than the people who were holding office - most of whom had been involved with the SGA for a maximum of two semesters when last I regularly attended SGA meetings.
I've been the first to say that The Carolinian hasn't covered the SGA the way it should for a year or more. But if there had been an SGA beat reporter on the organization for even this school year and they were doing their job they'd be infinitely more knowledgable than Melissa Westmoreland or most of the poeple who are embroiled in this controversy about the SGA as a whole. If that same reporter had been covering the group for (gasp - imagine it!) more than a year they'd be, by the standards of the SGA, an old vet.
One of the biggest problems with the Carolinian is now and always has been the lack of staff and editorial continuity. It takes experienced reporters and editors to put out the best possible paper and that means we need reporters and editors who are willing to learn, will stick with their jobs and will play for the team where they're strongest. I think we have that now - but we're in something of a rebuilding year and almost everyone on the staff (including me, the old man of the bunch) is new in their job. There are ways of making the paper better, more consistent, its writing and editing better. And believe me - they're working on it. I think we may have the strongest, most dedicated staff we've ever had right now. But a lot of them are new and still learning.
In that sense the paper and the SGA have the same problem. But people who complain about the SGA but don't try to improve it are just as ridiculous as people who complain about the paper but don't help it correct errors, don't write for the staff, don't try to help it be the paper they want it to be. I've always said it of both groups: you can't win if you don't play.
OK... I'm officially out of this debate... I'm not a journalist and I'm not familiar with what you all are talking about. Have a nice day!
John: Joe has pretty much said this, but I'll throw in my two cents.
Firstly, please tell me what the Bible has to say specifically about journalism, or how the Associated Press knows nothing about journalistic ethics.
If you're just not a fan of the AP (the world's largest news organization), here's a list of 370 or so codes of ethics from various world papers. I haven't read them all personally, but I'm willing to guess the vast majority agree with the AP.
Second, suggesting that the SGA or any other organization or governing body is best equipped to report on itself is simply ridiculous. You're arguing against an independent free press. An indepedent observer is always better prepared to describe a situation.
Third, group promotions are given plenty of attention by our staff members who sell ads.
Ivan: I'm there.
John: You deleted the comment, but I'm responding anyway.
Please tell me how the Bible usurps the AP on journalistic ethics. I'm interested.
Unless when you say ethics (in this context obviously the rules governing the conduct of the members of a profession) you mean the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action. If that is so then your observation is pointless and irrelevent. If not, what does the Bible have to say on the subject?
Semantics aside, you're still suggesting that an opinion from someone personally involved in an organization is better than an independent observer, which again is ridiculous.
Ivan,
I must say, reading your comments gives me great reason to worry about UNCG's drug promlem.
As for the rest of you, I've said my peace. I still argue that I am not "deeply embroiled" in the controversy (with the exception of the part of the controversy that Killian personally tossed me into), but I can admit that rules are rules. I'm just glad that after two years of working at that place, I finally got a COPY of the rules. Thanks Luke.
Aside from that, I have to admit that I don't know anything about the media aside from what I learned (and debated) in Holian's class last semester. So all I have to say to this is, I think it's a silly rule that should not be applied in all cases, but it's a rule nonetheless, and I'll do my best to abide by it.
John: Again you're intentionally ignoring the difference between general ethics (meaning morals) and journalistic ethics (rules of the profession of journalism). If Jesus said anything about the confidentiality of anonymous sources, please let me know. If not, it's a pathetic attempt at dodging the issue.
To the question of the Federalist Papers, as I've said, exceptions can be made. If students overthrew our student government by force and were creating a new one, I'd probably make an exception. You're really grabbing at straws.
You quote "objectivity" yet you're the only one who said it. I said nothing of it. Obviously the Opinions section isn't objective. I don't know what you think you're responding to.
However you do reference fairness, which is a point I also talked about earlier. If both sides of the issue were given a fair say, as happened with the debate piece I referenced, there would be no problem. If Melissa's column had been printed by itself, only one side of the SGA debate would have gotten a say. Is that fair?
Commenting on how good an event was and advertising for a future event are two very different things. I've run letters praising and criticizing group events. Those aren't self-promotions.
Ivan: That would explain my fascination with Greek food. Does that mean Churchill and I can go halves on Ebay?
Melissa: Holian's class is good. I took it in its first semester. Holian was a reporter and now had a doctorate in political science - so he's extremely qualified to speak to just about any of the things that come up in the class, often from personal experience.
He's also the Carolinian's faculty advisor and I really trust his judgement on journalistic ethics. Since becoming our advisor he's backed every ethical move we've had trouble with and eventually resolved in favor of sticking with the established ethics of the profession (which, I agree with Luke, are semantically different and more specific than general "ethics").
Matt and Melissa: thank for at least copping to not being journalists and respecting that there are guidelines for the profession. I've been working for newspapers for a long time, done a lot of it and been pretty successful at it. But still I get people who are essentially my age telling me I don't know what I'm doing and assuming that, because they were born within a few years of me, they know as much about reporting and editing as I do. When this happens I always ask them to go to Holian or Rosemary Roberts, the former NYT reporter who teaches journalism at UNCG with newspapering questions if they think I'm just being an idiot. Unfortunately they very rarely take me up on it.
Jesus Christ, people, stop deleting posts. Can we not proofread by this age? There's a preview button if you can't.
John: Actually, I think the simple rules of journalistic ethics are common sense.
You're pointing out exceptions and saying they should be the standard. There are exceptions. They are not the rule.
I'd take issue with your claim of the "long standing journalistic tradition of the British nation," as I bet our News editor would (He's a Brit). Exceptions are not the rule, and at least since 1981 when News Corp bought The London Times, the rule has been no conflicts of interest.
I don't think the ethics of just about any profession are mystical or even hard to understand. But understanding them in theory and understanding them in practice are two different things.
I think most reasonable people would concede that people who have actually spent years working in a profession, who have actually experienced its challenges might have a better chance of knowing what they're talking about. That's not to say that no one from outside a profession or group should be able to argue or debate it. They can and should. But they should also make some effort to educate themselves about what they're talking about and treat the people who actually do the job with some respect.
I'm anti-war. I don't particularly like the way much of our military goes about its business even when we're not at war. But I'm also from a family with a long, strong military tradition and lived on Marine bases most of my life. I know Marines and their families and have some understanding of how and why they do what they do. Not NEARLY as much as people who actually have to do this work - but I've made the effort to understand and I treat them with respect, even when I disagree. You'll never hear me say some of the stupid, uninformed, half-baked bullshit about the military I hear from a lot of people on the Left. You'll never hear me say some of the ridiculous, uninformed, "I'm-not-fighting-the-war and neither is anyone I love" bullshit I've heard from the Right. I don't assume I know everything and when I realize that I treat those who know more with some measure of respect (not to say deference) and I make an attempt to understand.
That's all I'm saying. Reporters get tons of phone calls at their office every day from people who've never so much as taken a journalism class at a community college and many of whom don't even read a single daily paper of any kind letting them know just how flawed our profession is, how badly we do our jobs and what we should be doing instead. Which is, you know, tremendously easy to argue if you've never worked a beat, have no concept of established journalistic ethics and why they've come to be what they are over a period of hundreds of years, how the job is done or why it's done that way.
Almost anyone would have to admit that's a bit out of whack. I'm not closed to conversation with anyone about reporting - in fact, I wish we'd have more conversations about it. But I do hate people with uninformed and overblown opinions about my profession telling me their views and conclusions are valid simply because they think them.
you know, i thought that too, and i statrted to get jealous. but it's totally just joe and luke and john. they're just, like, talking about stupid shit. and they're not stopping. i don't even know what the fuck they're talking about anymore. i think it's about journalism.
John: You were commenting on the AP code of ethics, I pointed out that the News Corp code of ethics agrees with it.
And as you said, the politicians writing about politics are usually not active members or as involved, meaning the example doesn't apply to Melissa's column.
You suggested that politicians writing about politics is better than an independent observer, which is still a ludicrous statement.
Patrick: I thought we were talking about how I'm related to Winston Churchill, cuz I love me some hootch and hate me some Nazis.
John: After 56 comments we've both expressed our sides of the argument and now we're just repeating ourselves.
We send writers to SGA meetings.
Patrick,
You're still reading...
John:
You do realize that in the times and places you're holding up as the golden age of journalism newsmen regularly and enthusiastically violated just about every tenent of good journalism to do things like cover up Roosevelt's illness, deliberately mis-report crucial war-time news, avoid embarassing Eisenhower, hide both Kennedy's glaring infidelity AND his nearly debilitating health problems and take it on faith that the government should decide when its people gets information about war, domestic policy and legislation, right?
Just throwing that out there. It's easy to romanticize the past when you also forget all of the brown spots on the apple.
I agree with you that there should be columnists attending SGA meetings and tearing into it. I don't think they should be in SGA. You of all people know I used to be up for that job myself - and I don't think you could argue anyone in the SGA at the time would have been a better critic of what the group was doing than me, who had nothing to do with it. I wouldn't compare myself to H.L. Mencken, but in that time and place I was a good example of the argument that it's that sort of columnist who does it best, is most fair and can be trusted not to be doing it for reasons that aren't journalistic. If I wasn't working for the city daily in almost all of the time I'm not in class these days I'd still be doing it. Someone needs to step up.
I've never said this to Melissa because there's never been occasion - but I think she'd be a lot more influential and get a lot more done as weekly columnist on this than an SGA senator. It seems increasingly clear to me that the students body, at least, would be better served by having her at her keyboard than one more person in a room full of screaming people. of course, where SGA is concerned that's always been the case. A few years ago Chris Young was trying to get me to run for SGA president and a few other people told me they were sure that, in the field and at the time, I could win.
My only question, at that time, was: Is there anybody who really thinks I could do more good in SGA than what I'm doing right now?
A lot of things have changed about SGA since then -- but not enough.
Psha. I am not. I'm skimming it while I look at porn.
Cuz it's all masturbation to me!
Ba da dum de dum
Hey!
It is odd that Miss Westmoreland laments the lack of free speech at her university, in that she regularly gets to air her (tremendously partisan) views to the entire student body without a fair rebuttal.
This is not unlike President Bush recently being praised in the N&R for finally facing (though not answering) questions from an audience-member who was poorly screened. How can you say you are not given freedom of speech when you are perhaps the most-read individual on campus?
I recently re-enrolled as a (disenfranchised?) gradute student, and was astonished at how political The Carolinian has become. While the majority of students and faculty at UNC-G are certainly center-liberal, their newspaper is dominated by right-far-right voices. While this is unfortunate, it is far more lamentable that the person at the center of this shift would somehow make herself a free-speech martyr.
Hahaha... oooohh my...
It is odd that Miss Westmoreland laments the lack of free speech at her university, in that she regularly gets to air her (tremendously partisan) views to the entire student body without a fair rebuttal.
Did you even read the column? Our freedom of speech was literally threatened. How is that not an issue I should bring up? Should I just sit back and let our rights disappear? I don't think so. Also, maybe you don't realize what I do. I am a PARTISAN COLUMNIST. So yes, of course my column is going to be partisan. It's what they pay me for. Also, everyone gets a fair rebuttal. They print all signed letters that aren't outright slander. In fact, I don't get to respond to those letters in any way, shape, or form. So who isn't getting a fair rebuttal here?
How can you say you are not given freedom of speech when you are perhaps the most-read individual on campus?
Read it over again. We're talking about blogs, and someone threatening to take away our freedom of speech, not actually doing so. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're too lazy to read.
I recently re-enrolled as a (disenfranchised?) gradute student, and was astonished at how political The Carolinian has become.
Oh heaven forbid, a political newspaper. Let's not talk about politics. Let's talk about puppies!
While the majority of students and faculty at UNC-G are certainly center-liberal, their newspaper is dominated by right-far-right voices.
Oh my God, that is hilarious. Please tell me you're joking.
While this is unfortunate, it is far more lamentable that the person at the center of this shift would somehow make herself a free-speech martyr.
I'm quite honored. I never knew I was at the center of the right-wing conspiracy on campus.
Thanks for the comment. I needed that.
After getting more than 10000 visitors/day to my website I thought your thatpoliscinerd.blogspot.com website also need unstoppable flow of traffic...
Use this BRAND NEW software and get all the traffic for your website you will ever need ...
= = > > http://get-massive-autopilot-traffic.com
In testing phase it generated 867,981 visitors and $540,340.
Then another $86,299.13 in 90 days to be exact. That's $958.88 a
day!!
And all it took was 10 minutes to set up and run.
But how does it work??
You just configure the system, click the mouse button a few
times, activate the software, copy and paste a few links and
you're done!!
Click the link BELOW as you're about to witness a software that
could be a MAJOR turning point to your success.
= = > > http://get-massive-autopilot-traffic.com
Post a Comment
<< Home