Comments

Bravo.

Posted by Greg at September 15, 2005 4:10 PM

Thank you.

Posted by Mike at September 15, 2005 4:29 PM

I'd just like to take this opportunity to talk about some very interesting research that I've been doing on nanocommunication. It all started when...

just kidding ; ) This is an example of why our freedoms must be checked at times; for the sake of the greater good, for order, for the well being of our community.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at September 15, 2005 6:55 PM

Way to go Cathy! Did Tom make you his henchman? Is censorship at TP.com the new order of the day? BTW, why hasn't Tom weighed in on this? Tom always said that this century belongs to Communist China (when in Rome, do as the Romans). I hope all of your loyal storm troopers have a chance to condemn my comments before you censor and delete my entry. I have never posted any articles on your site--I'm just a free speech loving guy. But do not fear. I'll protest just as loudly when the anti-free speech crowd moves against you too.

Posted by Don at September 15, 2005 10:16 PM

TP! Clan... mmmmggg good choice....

Don... chill man ;)

Posted by Raymond at September 16, 2005 2:49 AM

Brilliant post Cathy - I agree totally.

Some of the stuff recently has been too bulky to read.

Don - I don’t see this as censorship at all - just simple common sense.

I suspect everyone is busy as or busier than me and frankly I do not have time to read all the stuff - even though I am sure it is very interesting.

I favour brief discussion with links to other stuff. The reader then makes the choice. We can all summarise better - including me.

Frankly some of the long stuff has sailed blissfully over my head in the last three weeks which is a shame as I would love to have the time to read it all.

Well done Cathy – as per the Meatloaf Lyrics “You took the words right out of my mouth”

That is enough ...as I said we can all summarise better :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 16, 2005 3:05 AM

yep, blogs grow rapidly and with them in parallel new horizonts for SPAM expands. It will become even a grater challenge for bloggers and Wiki site "owners" to fight unwanted posts.

On the other side, I totaly aggree that this makes a public censorship approach...

But on still another hand long posts really makes the comments ruin discussions.

So, so... I do believe that at TP.com an innovation will emerge in the form of the Cool (from capital "C").

Posted by mantautas at September 16, 2005 3:42 AM

This was not an easy decision. Cathy and I and Erik Hansen gave it a lot of thought. I am opposed to censorship. I started to write "utterly opposed." I am utterly opposed to censorship in the First Ammendment sense. But at this site we've practiced a modest form of censorship all along. In private, I swear like the old sailor I am. Yet we decided early on to keep a few words out of the blog, and I suppose if someone made a post with "shit" as every other word, we'd cut it. As to this decision, we are a community, and the blog is a community center. If our community center was physical, and a member regularly littered the place, we'd probably feel we had to ask him not to use the place. At our community center, we also have an obligation to make the place "user friendly." Part of that is working on, or at least being conscious of, rhythm. We do not aim to be "fast paced," I like long comments, frankly. And I also like long comments that digress. On the other hand there is a "point" (aesthetically determined) when long comments become, well, too long--and poison the discussion and keep new visitors away. Perversly, I made a long Post yesterday. I rarely do that. And I rarely do it, because it would be user/community unfriendly if I did it often. There is, I believe a rhythm to a good-peppy-useful-meaty Blogsite. We are conscious of that--and a million other things. Take the poll issue. We of course knew that being able to vote multiple times was a problem, and it was on our eventual "to fix" list. But, delightfully, no one seemed to have abused the feature, so our sense of urgency was low. In the most recent poll, the "faith" was abused, and, frankly, it made the poll useless. How did we decide the "faith was abused"? Judgement, for God's sake. When a poll's up a week or so, and the ratio of votes is pretty stable, one figures folks are more or less voting once. When a jillion votes magically appear on one position, you imagine that "the fix is on." Our solution is pretty obvious in this case--drop the polls (which I like) until we get the "one person, one vote" mechanism in place. When we talked a couple of days ago after confronting the run-on issue, I said to my colleagues, "Well I guess this is all part of a natural evolution. As the site becomes more popular, we'll have to increase the time we spend on managing it. Consider Comments that are way off the topic. I do like them, and we have no intention of blocking them ... more or less. This is a site more or less about management and leadership and business and stuff. Yes, "stuff." we do not have clear limits on what we post about, but there is a "sorta" theme that revolves around the stuff I've been ranting about for the last 30 years, and I assume that's why you visit. So if a series of discussions got way, way, way off the charts, I guess we'd start to wonder about it. Topical site "management" (hey, this is "tompeters.com," not "AOL" or "Yahoo") will continue--pretty lightly, but it will continue. If you're pissed at any attempts at censorship, say, let us know--I KNOW YOU WILL!

Posted by tom peters at September 16, 2005 4:10 AM

Pragamtism and simplicity rules Tom - thanks for your common sense :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 16, 2005 4:16 AM

Folks,

Visit my blog ( i jus created one 2day)...

http://ksriram.blogspot.com/

Happy blogging!

Posted by K.Sriram at September 16, 2005 5:17 AM

Smart move.
'Haven't done it much or for ages, though' I'll admit to being a culprit. Sorry.

'There was music in the cafes at night and revolution in the air'... I miss the old webcafe?(can't recall the name) forum-type-thing where folk could add their bit - if memory serves, it rarely got too indulgent (lot of crap, sure - but a reasonable length).

Some folk genuinely thrive on the personal interaction - which can't be had through a comment. Nostalgic reminisce and wishlist to one side, there ain't too many (and I can't currently think of any) places where we can get that type of interaction - random free-rolling discussions about stuff.

The 'normal' business forums send me to sleep (on good days) - and have me running for the hills most of the time.

My point? Simple. Beyond PLEASE consider reincarnating a format where those so-minded can get into appropriate discussion without clogging the comments.

[And, not wishing to go off topic in a bad way - so please delete it if I have - I also want to talk about other non-TP work (I guess many of us read Kawasaki/Godin/Cluetrain etc) which 'enlivens' commerce, so if anyone's got any tips I'll gladly receive 'em.]

Posted by gulliver at September 16, 2005 7:35 AM

I have to wonder, sometimes. I've commented twice with a link, rather than posting a longish comment, on topic. At least I think they were on topic - perhaps emergent network organization isn't actually relevent to management theory and disaster relief. Neither comment was approved, and yet I see "check out my blog" accepted.

Go figure.

Posted by Greg Burton at September 16, 2005 10:01 AM

I don't like a 'Comment Approval' system on any blog. When I encounter it, I go elsewhere. I think people should be allowed to speak and post links without restriction. If what they speak about or link to is garbage, and they do it often, then I could understand marking their IP address so their comments can be approved in the future.

In my experience this blog is extremely well run - tolerant and fair. We are guests here and if someone regularly abuses the hospitality, then I think it's fair for their comments to be approved. I think it would be a mistake, however, under a misplaced desire for fair play to punish everyone for the actions of one or two people. We don't want to do anything to discourage people from speaking their minds freely and if they feel that what they write will be censored, they might be more careful in their posting, but also less honest about their true feelings. We have a reputation for having some of the best damn (excuse me, darn!) conversations on the net. It would be a shame to toss that away because someone long-winded posts their treatise on the fair treatment of the albino meadow vole, inviting censorship. If you want to bounce the meadow vole comment out on its ear, you don't have to explain it to the rest of us. I personally would rather have my comments deleted than edited in any way.

The reason I keep coming back here is because we get interesting topics, real people speaking their minds and tolerance for different viewpoints. To everyone who makes this possible, thank you.

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 16, 2005 10:55 AM

Since posting the comment above, I discovered that an innocuous article from the International Herald Tribune I posted had been trimmed, and not by very much. Over the past couple of weeks, I had tried to post links with some of my comments and was met each time with a dialog box saying I was a new user and since I had posted a link, my comment was now subject to approval. I'm not a new user here.

If I had been able to post that article with just a link, I would have made a short comment and attached the link, but since this new feature has appeared on tp.com, I instead let the article do the talking for me. So when the article was cut, the point of what would have been my short comment was watered down. Therefore the censorship of this post (which served no useful purpose in terms of cutting down on the length of it since the majority of it is still there) actually censored my ideas.

In my opinion, one or two long-winded comments from one or two people is not a justifiable pretext for introducing censorship, although it is certainly justifiable to ask guests to try and keep their comments more succinct from now on. To aid in this process it might be useful to remove the links approval feature.

Today, it's a harmless newspaper article. Tomorrow, it's a comment someone does not agree with. And if people fear that has started happening, they will go elsewhere to have their conversations and probably mention when they can, why they don't comment here anymore. Personally, I think this place rocks and rolls and would not like to see people thinking they have to be careful what they say in case the PC police don't like it and rewrite it.

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 16, 2005 12:41 PM

Noel, it's not our intent to censor conversation, although anyone in their right mind can imagine some stuff that would be offensive for the sake of being offensive. I'd not, for instance, be inclined to let pass a response to a simple comment that subsequently compared the writer to Hitler. Or somone who threatened the President with physical harm. Or someone who provided to porn/child porn sites. As I said, for God's sake ... Our intent was mostly about pace--I know one can scroll fast through hyper-long stuff, but too much of that is going to turn many folks off, in our judgement. I love the indirection of many, many sets of comments, so that ain't on the table either. I can guarantee you that we have never cut anyone off for loud, obnoxious disagreement with me or a fellow commentor.

Posted by tom peters at September 16, 2005 12:44 PM

Tom, Cathy, Erik - Thanks for listening to your customers! ...and for fixing my boo-boo dbl. post the other day and allowing me to rant about the long posts. Cheers.

Posted by Eric Lapp at September 16, 2005 1:04 PM

Interesting,
People show so much ownership over the free comments that they provide to this blog. You would think that this blog would be the only method for civil (as in political not necessary friendly) discourse. Free speech was created so that people could have civil discourse over the direction of a country, no to allow people to record what ever they want on someone else's property.
My analogy is if I put up a big chalkboard at my office and allowed people to write on it. If they wrote really bad stuff, I would erase it because I own the chalkboard and the comments upset the community that I am trying to build. As much illusion of group ownership that a blog portrays someone owns the site.
Just realize that if the Tom Peters site deletes child porn posts, they are trying to create a community without it. If they erase 200 page rants, copies of copyrighted material or other stuff, they are trying to create community without those things. It is all about the direction of the community that the owners of the site are trying to create.
Only one link, favorite blog -> http://www.tompeters.com/

Posted by Steve Battista at September 16, 2005 3:06 PM

Tom, I am absolutely certain that it is not your intention to censor conversation. The very fact that you tolerate me on your site has proven that to me.

What concerns me is not the deletion of the occasional objectionable comment, as per the examples you've given. This is in the best interests of your site and in our best interests too since we don't want to be faced with some spammer in the middle of our conversation. But it is a very different thing to edit comments. For example, the article I posted had no references to pornography or Hitler or even bad language and since very little of it was removed, it was not the length of it that was the problem either.

And this is my point - you start with very good intentions to get rid of one or two obnoxious posts and then the people charged with taking care of this for you may say "hmm, well, this minor thing here is offensive" or "that minor thing there is inappropriate" and people's comments are suddenly being edited, rewritten, cleaned up and before you know it, the intent is being manipulated. This would not be in the best interests of open conversation and I would not like to see it happen, not even to Tom O'Leary's comments (just kidding, Tom O'). I enjoy our conversations. ; )

I think if people post a comment and check back to see what they might have said on something and find that their comment has been altered, the chances of them ever posting on that site again are very small.

Since your blog is achieving a well-earned reputation for vigorous and honest discussion and debate, it would be a shame to dilute that reputation in any way.

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 16, 2005 3:13 PM

Freedom of speech (FOS) is over-stressed. How about re-imagining something like a "freedom of (not) listening?" Does only the speaker have a right? I am not advocating a censorship, btw, I am very loud at least compared to my own social context. But there are times when FOS crosses the limit of responsibility.

If a society/system is built solely on the basic premise of RIGHTS, it does get unjust in time. RIGHTS come with DUTIES, in fact duties precede rights. A duty-oriented system would promote the notion of exercising caution and good taste at the user's end.

Anyway - forums are human. A forum like this even more so, I sometimes just silently visit the place to get refreshed (AAAAND, long cut & paste articles do kill my joy, now that I may say it). They are conversations, with all the vitality and sometimes the clamor of a conversation. The group self-determines what is appropriate for the conversation. As is true of human interactions - some things are just not appropriate and would lead to a note of caution.

Even more basically, it is honestly tiring to see dreadfully long posts with entire articles pasted in. Don't know why it always gives me the visual sense of a copyright infringement. :( [I am very visual.]

And while it is argued that even the slightest form of forum management can turn the posters off, how about potential posters who are discouraged by such lengthy scolling pages? I have sometimes refrained from comment b/c I thought, oh, there are already a 10000 word thesis up there.

May the conversation remains lively and heady as ever.

Warm regards.

Posted by Ramla A. at September 16, 2005 4:17 PM

Excellent!

free viagra online without prescription

I am glad of an idea like this. BTW if I would go too bad or too boring on my posts could you also let me know? :-)

Posted by Omara at September 16, 2005 5:01 PM

Thank you. Thank you.

Posted by Troy Worman at September 16, 2005 11:17 PM

Tom,
Sorry for the inciteful blast from yesterday. Like you, I guess it's part my nature to be a gadfly when something hacks me off. I really am a devoted fan of yours, and can often quote scripture and verse of your observations.
I hope you and Cathy will allow me to do so now:

Tom Peters, "Bringing Conversation To A Halt," Tom Peters Weblog, Sept 7 2004: "I'm at a loss. Our policy is that we don't drop any comment unless it's really offensive, bigoted , etc."

Tom Peters, "Junk Man Speaketh Out," Tom Peters Weblog, Nov 12, 2004:
Junk Man Speaketh Out
I can already imagine the Comments. But what the hell ...
I Am Junk Man.
I am ... Garbage Man.
My curiosity knows no limits.
My appetite for the Undesirable is ... Always Unsated.
I read everything.
I love the ... "unwanted," intrusive INTERRUPTIONS ... that are ... The Spice of Life.
(Of course I am ANNOYED by those Unwanted Interruptions ... BUT THEN I DISCOVER THAT THEY ARE THE BASIS FOR 99% OF WHAT I LEARN THAT'S COOL.)

I never know where an Inspiration will come from.
(I do ... KNOW ... KNOW ... KNOW ... it will likely come from an un-likely-"UNWANTED" ... UNSOLICITED ... quarter!)
Junk Man (me) ... LOVES ... Junk Mail. (You never know ...)
Junk Man ... LOVES (here I go) ... most Spam.
(Not phishing however.)
Junk Man ... HATES ... Filters ... All Filters ... on Any Aspect of Life.
Junk Man ... as a child ... had ... Inappropriate Friends.
(Blacks, Jews and Catholics were Spam in WASP world 50 years ago, when Junk Man was a 12-year-old Junior WASP. In those days we had Filters. Oh, did we have Filters ... such as laws that kept Spam from building in our WASP communities, for one example. Jim Crow was anti-Spam man, alive and well in those self-same, pre-MLKing, Ozzie-and-Harriet "idyllic" '50s.) (In 1960, when Junk Man was 18, there was a Breakthrough: Catholic Jack Kennedy spammed WASP-world ... and became President.)
It's a ... Philosophical Point!
Junk Man is a Libertarian!
Junk Man ... SPAMS ... Corporate Meetings with unwanted messages.
(A group of healthcare execs hires Junk Man to talk innocuously about "the future" ... and he calls them "killers" to their faces, based on Patient Safety Data—that the HC Execs don't think Junk Man ought to have access to.)

Junk Man ... LOVES ... Capitalism & Entrepreneurialism, where "unsolicited start-ups" crowd the competitive space of Orderly Oligopolists. (LISTEN UP: What else were Microsoft/Apple in 1982 to IBM if not Computer-industry Spam??? Unwanted, unauthorized, unsolicited, annoying, distracting, graceless, hippie boys sticking a juvenile finger in Daddy Blue's Private Monopolistic Pie! From Big Blue's perspective, fending off Microsoft-Apple was causing ... what else ... a Wretched Waste that led to loss of productivity!) (Isn't it true that everyone who makes the History Books does so because they ... Spammed the Establishment? Wasn't Tom Paine's 49-page Common Sense ... Maxi-Spam ... to Georgie-ThreeSticks-The-Big-Brit?)
Junk!
Celebrate it!
All ... SUPER-COOL THINGS ... start as ... Junk!
Hooray!
Tom Peters posted this on 11/12.

Tom, I don't know about you or your other readers, but I would rather be the rebel, the gadfly on your site, rather than the meek sheep that always are so quick to agree with you. Can I be the Junk Man on your site? Long Live Freedom of Speech! Long Live the Junk Man! Long Live TP.com. God Bless!

Your true raving fan
DonHZ

Posted by DonHz at September 17, 2005 12:27 AM

DonHz, by being Junk Man you are also agreeing.
I don't mind you being such man; I find OK you make as much "povera art" as you wish, I'll just would like that creativity to have a beautiful and clear goal, instead of producing more junk for the sake of it.

Posted by Omara at September 17, 2005 7:04 AM

I'm all for brevity and simplicity and rules. Example - the neighborhood I live in provides for parking only in garages and driveways - Nyet to the street - plus other value added covenants.

I see the TP decision as value added - moving up the value chain per free enterprise dictates.

Posted by Sean at September 17, 2005 9:55 AM

Sean,

These are Tom Peter's words, not mine:

"Our policy is that we don't drop any comment unless it's really offensive, bigoted , etc." Sept 7, 2004

"I never know where an Inspiration will come from. (I do ... KNOW ... KNOW ... KNOW ... it will likely come from an un-likely-"UNWANTED" ... UNSOLICITED ... quarter!) Junk Man ... HATES ... Filters ... All Filters ... on Any Aspect of Life." Nov 12, 2004

"Isn't it true that everyone who makes the History Books does so because they ... Spammed the Establishment? Wasn't Tom Paine's 49-page Common Sense ... Maxi-Spam ... to Georgie-ThreeSticks-The-Big-Brit?)Junk! Celebrate it!
All ... SUPER-COOL THINGS ... start as ... Junk!
Hooray!" Nov 12, 2004

Tom, I couldn't be in more agreement with your comments.

Posted by Don HZ at September 17, 2005 10:25 PM

What follows is a long-winded post. Please feel free to move your finger or mouse to the scroll bar and zip past. : )

I'm not in favor of deleting comments, but as with everything else, there are exceptions and spammers are one of them. If a spammer comes onto the site and tries to sell Viagra under the table, wink, wink, to the community, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to delete their comment, email them to say you do not appreciate what they did and suggest they don't do it again, then mark their IP address for 'Comment Approval'. Spammers add nothing to the conversation.

I used to think that it was better not to delete comments from trolls, or people who take a strange pleasure in being deliberately offensive, for these reasons:

pfizer viagra 100mg canada

“No one likes to hear close-minded, prejudiced people because they don’t have anything interesting to say. If some looney tune comes onto your site and advocates genocide or any other outrageous, ridiculous view, you have nothing to fear. They've made themselves out to be a fool and everyone else will see them exactly for what they are. People who seriously suggest things like "Hey, I've got a really great idea - let's kill everyone with freckles!" are off their rockers and anyone who reads them doesn't say "Wow! What a great idea! Wish I'd thought of it." They say "Gee, what a nut!" Spouting off general nonsense in a public forum is basically the same as painting yourself purple and standing naked in Times Square.

Writing rules and regulations solves nothing, neither does getting upset and taking it personally. The most effective solution is for society to band together and laugh at these people. Ridicule is the only attention they deserve.”

I’ve changed my mind a little because I’ve seen that sites who tolerate lots of troll-like comments turn people with something interesting to say, off. If trolls predominate, the quality of the conversation is not going to be very deep and people will go elsewhere. I can see how it would give a bad impression of your site if trolls are allowed to move in. And if that’s happening, I think it’s reasonable to delete comments that are blatantly offensive, email those posting them to tell them you don’t appreciate what they’re posting and mark their IP address for ‘Comment Approval’. But this is not what is happening on tompeters.

What is happening on tompeters is that we now have a ‘Comment Approval’ system if you want to post a link, a single link, not multiple links, even if you have been posting for months on the site and are well known to the regulars here. Posts considered ‘long-winded’ are now subject to deletion. Most alarming of all is that we are now being told that what we say can be altered, or modified, or rewritten.

That’s censorship. And in my view it is the worst form of censorship. It is one thing to tell someone “you have no voice here” and delete their comment. That’s bad enough (though I can understand the very occasional need for it), but it is far worse to alter what someone says because you are putting their name to your version of their ideas.

Even one of the most corporate blogs out there, Chrysler, as Chris Houchens has pointed out above, will not alter or modify or rewrite what someone says; they will ask the person themselves to do it.

I can understand the temptation for someone running a blog to turn from moderating the conversation to controlling it. It’s done all the time out there, just not very successfully. There are rules galore on some blogs; what you can say, what you can’t. There are “Comment Approval’ systems. Some have a 500 character limit on comments and shut off comments after 24 hours. Others say that if you post something they don’t like, they can ask you to edit it. This isn’t freedom of speech. This isn’t open conversation. These are all attempts to control the conversation. And in my opinion those that try will not enjoy the open debate we do here on tompeters.

If what you’re looking for is a mutual admiration society, by all means, post rules, edit comments, introduce comment approval and drive away the free thinkers. If you want real conversation where people relax and openly speak their minds, don’t do anything to restrain it.

I feel that I have the right to comment on this because I have been subject to this new ‘trimming’ initiative. Very little of the International Herald Tribune article I posted in the Wal*Mart thread was deleted, but the part that was was in a sense the punch line. This minor deletion altered the thrust and intention of my comment.

The International Herald Tribune article was not offensive, did not have any references to pornography or to my private enterprise. And I know it was not the length of the article that was the problem since in the same thread Ron reprinted directly above mine an article from Reuters on the same subject which was as long if not longer than mine, yet Ron’s article was not altered in any way.

I would like to make a couple of requests.

1. Please remove the comment approval feature for links. I understand that someone may come along and post links to pornography and what not, but in those cases, it’s very easy for us to notify you of what’s been done, or for you to see it and delete it. And since this is not a children’s site, the damage to our psyche by clicking on a link to the new Nazi party can be easily disregarded by us and deleted by you.

2. Please do not reinterpret, modify or rewrite comments.

3. Please do not delete even ‘long-winded’ and boring posts. Instead, perhaps you could email those making them and ask them if they wouldn’t mind in the future posting links to their 150+ step plans. If the comment approval system on links is removed, the chances of this approach succeeding will be greatly improved.

Like my dear, independent wife said: don’t give up any part of your freedom without a fight. There are many here who don’t think this is important, but think about what you are giving up and what it could mean before you say: “Great idea. Thanks tp.com.”

As I discovered, it’s one thing to say, “sure, delete other people’s posts or rewrite their comments. I trust your judgment,” but when you’re on the receiving end of that, you realize first hand what you are agreeing to and what you are saying is okay to do to other people.

It’s not okay.

Posted by Noel Guinane at September 18, 2005 4:28 AM

Seems like in this nanoFAST iPOD world-culture that brevity is best - state your point in 8 words or less or you don't have a point [Seth?]. Create a new website for yourself if you must blog 1000's of words per day?

Dr. T - speaking of changes - I'd like to see a focus on wealth and health building on the TP site as we move into 2006 - which starts in 2 weeks for federal government associates like myself! Happy almost new full moon year!

Must be healthful and wealthful these days to survive! And 2 key values, plus simplicity and ecosystem respect for me are healthy and wealthy oriented - and they seem to be the same for the TP site.

Example: after 2 weeks of a "cold" I finally figured out that I was semi-allergic to this new drink I just started drinking 2 weeks ago! Ecstatic that I figured it out - the semi-allergic part is a challenge though!

Posted by Sean at September 18, 2005 10:08 AM

A lot of the responses to this are too long - but hey! That's freedom of speech for you.

I agree with Tom's main point. Rules are rules, in any community.

Not sure I understand why the polls have to be suspended, just because one was abused, once? Isn't that like putting a bureaucratic rule in place that pisses off all your customers just because one of them was out of line?

I may be being thick, here, of course!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at September 18, 2005 2:38 PM

Hi Sean

Great suggestion - I would back the emphasis on health and simplicity - my two specialist subjects!! - the cheque is in the post :-)

Posted by Trevor at September 18, 2005 3:50 PM

Thanks Trevor - I think TP is almost there re: a focus area on health & wealth & simplicity [maybe a right column icon on the website - since energy/future finance is derived from such for the 25 and holding crowd like myself] - am residing now near Seattle - low property tax on the new place - 0% state tax - 0% sales tax on food & pharma - 5% cash back on food - pharma - gasoline w/Citicard & Chase credit cards ... may have stumbled on to something here!

Posted by Sean at September 19, 2005 8:51 AM