Pages

Jump to bottom

35 comments

1 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 1:41:03pm

Uh, how does this "explain" anything? The cables were published because they were stolen and given to Wikileaks.

This has no bearing at all on the fact that by releasing those cables, Wikileaks put one of Zimbabwe's best hopes for democratic reform in serious danger.

2 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 1:54:58pm

re: #1 Charles

Uh, how does this "explain" anything? The cables were published because they were stolen and given to Wikileaks.

Its the guardian's headline not mine.


This has no bearing at all on the fact that by releasing those cables, Wikileaks put one of Zimbabwe's best hopes for democratic reform in serious danger.

I am noting that the choice to publish the cable was made by thegaurdian.co.uk.

Any fallout from that cable should be placed there.

3 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 1:56:49pm

re: #2 ozbloke

Its the guardian's headline not mine.

I am noting that the choice to publish the cable was made by thegaurdian.co.uk.

Any fallout from that cable should be placed there.

The Guardian would not have been able to publish the cable if Wikileaks had not given it to them. I find this attempt to shift the blame pretty lame.

4 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 2:05:33pm

re: #3 Charles

The Guardian would not have been able to publish the cable if Wikileaks had not given it to them.

I agree with that.

We could add that if Manning had not have given wikileaks the info it would have not been published.
And id the US Govt. did not allow Manning to download 250,000 cables it would not have been published.

I find this attempt to shift the blame pretty lame.

I don't know if that is addressed to me, or to the Guardian who has taken responsibility for it.

I don't think your disagreement is with me.

5 Alexzander  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 2:26:49pm

re: #4 ozbloke


We could add that if Manning had not have given wikileaks the info it would have not been published.
And id the US Govt. did not allow Manning to download 250,000 cables it would not have been published.

I agree with this argument; I'm not sure why Wikileaks is the singularly evil link in the chain, which is the impression one would get from the article by James Richardson. This Guardian followup is, I suppose, a way of acknowledging their partial responsibility in the event.

6 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 4:54:13pm

re: #5 Alexzander

I agree with this argument; I'm not sure why Wikileaks is the singularly evil link in the chain, which is the impression one would get from the article by James Richardson. This Guardian followup is, I suppose, a way of acknowledging their partial responsibility in the event.

Because Wikileaks accepted and disseminated stolen information. I don't consider that blameless. And the fact that the military should have had tighter controls on Manning (which I agree with) doesn't change that.

7 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:01:39pm

re: #6 Charles

Because Wikileaks accepted and disseminated stolen information.

I agree with that remark, but surely this has been true of many leaks historically.

The judgement to publish that specific cable though was not wikileaks.
The Guardian search the cables, found that one, and chose to publish it.

The Guardian should take responsibility for that, and any fallout from it.

Do you not agree?

8 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:03:15pm

re: #7 ozbloke

The Guardian has their own share of the blame, but again - there would be nothing to blame them for if Julian Assange had not given them the cable in the first place.

9 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:19:23pm

re: #8 Charles

The Guardian has their own share of the blame, but again - there would be nothing to blame them for if Julian Assange had not given them the cable in the first place.

As you stated before, the US Govt. failed their diplomats.
Manning stole.
Wikileaks disseminated stolen information.

But out of a cache of 250,000 cables, the Guardian chose that one to publish.

That story went around the world in print media and the blogoshere and wikileaks was the one who was named as releasing/publishing that cable.
That was on the 28th December.

It took the Guardian over two weeks to correct that record. I'm sure it was fairly out of the press by then.

I will not cut them any slack on this.
They have now taken responsibility for it, I think its a good thing.

The Guardian, Politico and the Atlantic have all offered updates to the original story, and I think thats a good thing.

Its about the accuracy of the reporting for me.

10 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:29:57pm

re: #9 ozbloke

I think they're all to blame, and Wikileaks does not get a pass on this from me. They are far more culpable than the Guardian for the situation in Zimbabwe.

11 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:31:49pm

And out of all the actors in this mess, the US military is the one who gets the least blame. Yes, they should have had tighter security, but that does not make it somehow OK for someone to steal classified documents.

A lapse in security is not the same as a criminal act.

12 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:40:36pm

re: #10 Charles

I think they're all to blame, and Wikileaks does not get a pass on this from me. They are far more culpable than the Guardian for the situation in Zimbabwe.

Because you see the dissemination as the greater crime?
I'm not sure that I see that on this cable, can you please tell me why thats true for you, if that is not a rude question?

As I understand it, wikileaks did a deal with the newspapers, the news papers decide what to publish and therefore should be responsible for what that publish and any fallout that comes from it, correct me if I'm wrong.

13 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 5:44:57pm

re: #11 Charles

And out of all the actors in this mess, the US military is the one who gets the least blame. Yes, they should have had tighter security, but that does not make it somehow OK for someone to steal classified documents.

A lapse in security is not the same as a criminal act.

I think Manning is responsible for what he choose, and he will face the consequences for that.

I struggle to see how a dude sitting in a tent in the middle east would need access to 250,000 cables from around the world, a percentage of which bears no relationship to Manning or his mission.

I believe the US Govt is working on changing laws regarding access as we speak.
Though I am not aware of any changes to law as yet regarding wikileaks or the media's role.

Clearly the US Govt see their role as having failed these diplomats.

14 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 6:59:28pm

re: #13 ozbloke

Clearly the US Govt see their role as having failed these diplomats.

Dude, you're comparing a mistake, an omission, a laxity, to a deliberate malfeasance.

Yes, the military should keep tighter control. But that is a passive mistake. Manning stealing the cables, Wikileaks distriubting them, the Guardian publishing them-- these are all active bits of malfeasance.

Do you really not get that distinction?

15 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 7:24:31pm

re: #14 Obdicut

Dude, you're comparing a mistake, an omission, a laxity, to a deliberate malfeasance.

Yes, it is a catastrophe, a tragedy, a cataclismic apocalyptic monumental calamity.


Yes, the military should keep tighter control. But that is a passive mistake. Manning stealing the cables, Wikileaks distriubting them, the Guardian publishing them-- these are all active bits of malfeasance.

Do you really not get that distinction?

Not sure if you speed read through comments then post, but I was not arguing that the US Govt were most to blame for wikileaks.

I was laying the blame for the Morgan Tsvangirai cables at the feet of the Guardian as they were the first to choose to publish them.

But I will say that the security is an issue that the US Govt is indeed addressing.

16 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 7:27:28pm

re: #15 ozbloke

Yes, it is a catastrophe, a tragedy, a cataclismic apocalyptic monumental calamity.

Why be a dick? It's really unimpressive.


I was laying the blame for the Morgan Tsvangirai cables at the feet of the Guardian as they were the first to choose to publish them.

And why were you not laying the blame of that on Wikileaks, who chose to take the stolen material and chose to give it to the Guardian? How does that make any sense to you? Because Wikileaks-- an organization dedicated to leaking material others want kept quiet-- didn't explicitly want that particular piece of information published?

17 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 7:40:40pm

re: #16 Obdicut

Why be a dick? It's really unimpressive.

Obdi,
Seriously, I thought that was funny.
We have commented a few times, I have always thought you are a bright lad and I admire you.
No offense intended.

And why were you not laying the blame of that on Wikileaks, who chose to take the stolen material and chose to give it to the Guardian? How does that make any sense to you? Because Wikileaks-- an organization dedicated to leaking material others want kept quiet-- didn't explicitly want that particular piece of information published?

Well from the 28th of December till a day or so ago everyone was blaming wikileaks.
But the Guardian has now admitted that they were the ones to 'first publish'that specific cable.

Am I right thinking that you dont see a place in this world at all for 'the likes' of wikileaks?

I think there is a place for whistle blowers, therefore there needs to be an outlet for these people.

Historically in western democracies we could claim the media played that role. Not that that helped the whole world.
Personally I question how much the modern media acquiesces to political will all round the world.

This has given rise to 'the wikileaks' of this age, right wrong or indifferent.

Now in this cable that we are discussing, it was one of 250000 that the Guardian and others were given.

The Guardian choose it from all others, and considered that the world should know.
They were the ones who should accept responsibility for any fallout.

The US Govt, Manning and wikileaks all played a part, any any of the three could have stopped it. But none of those three choose to first publish this one cable.

18 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 7:47:24pm

re: #17 ozbloke

Well from the 28th of December till a day or so ago everyone was blaming wikileaks.
But the Guardian has now admitted that they were the ones to 'first publish'that specific cable.

And?


Am I right thinking that you dont see a place in this world at all for 'the likes' of wikileaks?

No. Apparently you haven't really bothered to read anything I've ever written about it.

The place for a place 'like' wikileaks is where it always has been-- with responsible journalists.


This has given rise to 'the wikileaks' of this age, right wrong or indifferent.

And?


The Guardian choose it from all others, and considered that the world should know.
They were the ones who should accept responsibility for any fallout.

Listen. I understand this is your positoin. I really do. What I'm asking you to do is to explain why it's your position.

You're saying the US is at fault for not safeguarding secrets-- and the guardian is at fault for publishing, but not Wikileaks even though they didn't safeguard the secrets and they gave them to an institution that could choose to publish them.

What is your logic?

19 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 7:50:00pm

re: #17 ozbloke

As Wikileaks currently works, it's a massively destructive force.

Yes, there's a place for whistleblowers, and yes, there are some secrets that need to be exposed in order to prevent wrongdoing. But the way to do it correctly is with targeted documents, exposing specific instances of wrongdoing.

It's naive -- no, actually, it's stupid to think that just puking out thousands and thousands of documents is anything like this. It's political monkey-wrenching on an international scale, it hurts many innocent people (we just hear about the high-profile ones) and it damages international relations in ways that are impossible to predict.

I'm completely 100% opposed to the way Wikileaks currently operates. It's a blunt force weapon and all it's good for is smashing. But that's to be expected because it arose out of the vision of an anarchist.

20 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 7:58:35pm

re: #18 Obdicut


The place for a place 'like' wikileaks is where it always has been-- with responsible journalists.

I will be presumptuous here, Manning didn't seem to agree.



Listen. I understand this is your positoin. I really do. What I'm asking you to do is to explain why it's your position.

You're saying the US is at fault for not safeguarding secrets-- and the guardian is at fault for publishing, but not Wikileaks even though they didn't safeguard the secrets and they gave them to an institution that could choose to publish them.

What is your logic?

I am saying the US has some responsibility, yes.
They need to take some responsibility and they are addressing that need.

Manning stole the documents.

wikileaks dissemination the information.

The Guardian published the specific cable that caused a lot of press because of its content, I think if there is fallout for that, this is where the blame lies.

Please tell me, where do we have an disagreement.

21 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 8:02:30pm

re: #19 Charles

As Wikileaks currently works, it's a massively destructive force.

Yes, there's a place for whistleblowers, and yes, there are some secrets that need to be exposed in order to prevent wrongdoing. But the way to do it correctly is with targeted documents, exposing specific instances of wrongdoing.

Respectfully I would suggest that The Guardian's people thinks that that is what they have done with this cable.

And I have been arguing that I don't agree with that.

22 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 8:12:35pm

re: #20 ozbloke

I will be presumptuous here, Manning didn't seem to agree.

So what? You have the immensely irritating habit of dropping a sentence like that that you obviously feel is really killer, but it's impossible to discern what the fuck you mean by it.

The Guardian published the specific cable that caused a lot of press because of its content, I think if there is fallout for that, this is where the blame lies.

Please tell me, where do we have an disagreement.

Right there.

Imagine this is blackmail, okay?

Creep A finds out the dirty secret. He tells it to creep B. Creep B shares it with creep C, who actually engages in the blackmail.

Creep C is definitely to blame, but so is creep B.

Or, if you want the positive spin:

Imagine Hero A finds out that the government has been surpressing the cure for cancer. He gives that info to Hero B. Hero B gives it to Hero C. Hero C reveals it to the world.

Hero B: still a hero.

You seem to be taking the frankly bizarre position that by staying in the mum middle, Wikileaks somehow dodges all ethical responsibility for the information that passes through them.

23 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 8:37:32pm

re: #22 Obdicut


You seem to be taking the frankly bizarre position that by staying in the mum middle, Wikileaks somehow dodges all ethical responsibility for the information that passes through them.


If you can show me where I absolved all responsibility from the US Govt, Manning and wikileaks I would be grateful.

It could have stopped anywhere along that path, but it didn't.
Yes all four share some part of responsibility in this.
I have never tried to lay any particular percentage to any.

I don't know how to be clearer with you, I'm sorry for that.

The topic of this thread is about a specific story.
"Morgan Tsvangirai cable"

The Govt did not secure these cables.
Manning got 250000 documents, I dont know if he knew that cable was in there or not. However, I believe Manning will be charged and face the consequences.

wikileaks did some deal to share the cables with 5 major papers. wikileaks discriminated the cables. What knowledge wikileaks had about the specific cable I don't know.

The Guardian willingly found and publish this cable.
If lives are in danger now because of it, or democracy has been harmed.
The way I see it is they pulled that trigger.

Does that absolve others who may have incited them, no, but I never said it did.

24 Usually refered to as anyways  Thu, Jan 13, 2011 9:11:52pm

re: #23 ozbloke

PIMF: s/discriminated/disseminated/g

25 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 4:05:36am

re: #19 Charles

It's naive -- no, actually, it's stupid to think that just puking out thousands and thousands of documents is anything like this. It's political monkey-wrenching on an international scale, it hurts many innocent people (we just hear about the high-profile ones) and it damages international relations in ways that are impossible to predict.

The indiscriminate "dumping" approach was more that of the Iraq and Afghan War diaries. With the cables, the publication relied, AFAIK, heavily on the editorializing decisions of the collaborating newspapers.

If the quality of a whistleblow is ultimately crafted at the intersection between the leaking of the information (dumps) and the publication thereof (news), then the process of editorializing is the one that deserves the most scrutiny.

Another problem, however, is the process of selecting editors.

26 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 4:55:44am

re: #23 ozbloke

If you can show me where I absolved all responsibility from the US Govt, Manning and wikileaks I would be grateful.

Here:

The Guardian published the specific cable that caused a lot of press because of its content, I think if there is fallout for that, this is where the blame lies.

You didn't say some of the blame, or most of the blame, but 'this is where the blame lies'.

Are you going to bother explaining this statement?


I will be presumptuous here, Manning didn't seem to agree.
27 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:02:31pm

re: #26 Obdicut

Here:

You didn't say some of the blame, or most of the blame, but 'this is where the blame lies'.

Are you going to bother explaining this statement?
"I will be presumptuous here, Manning didn't seem to agree."

I not sure why that wasn't clear to you.

You said:
"The place for a place 'like' wikileaks is where it always has been-- with responsible journalists."

I replied:
"I will be presumptuous here, Manning didn't seem to agree."

Manning didn't choose the traditional media, he chose wikileaks.

As to where the blame lies, as I said, the Guardian published the cable, they pulled the trigger.

The US Govt had the cable, they didn't look after it, they are addressing that.
I don't believe Manning still has that cable.
wikileaks does have the cable, wasn't the first to publish it but was the one receiving the flack over the information becoming 'public knowledge'.

The Guardian did publish the cable willingly.
Is there is any fallout, to me it should be laid at their feet.

Imagine its a burglary.

Person A, leaves the plans to Fort Knox on his desk.
Person B, steals a copy of the plans to Fort Knox then gives then to Person C
Person C wants part of the proceeds but isn't willing to do the job himself so he does some deal with Person D and stays home.
Person D robs Fort Knox, and in the process kills a guard.

Want to hand down some sentences for me?

28 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:10:00pm

re: #27 ozbloke

Manning didn't choose the traditional media, he chose wikileaks.

And? Why on earth do you think you're explaining yourself by saying that? Manning wasn't leaking a story, he wasn't revealing something in specific, he was leaking everything he could get his hands on.

Person A, leaves the plans to Fort Knox on his desk.
Person B, steals a copy of the plans to Fort Knox then gives then to Person C
Person C wants part of the proceeds but isn't willing to do the job himself so he does some deal with Person D and stays home.
Person D robs Fort Knox, and in the process kills a guard.

Want to hand down some sentences for me?

Sure. Person A committed no crime.

Person B is guilty of theft and selling stolen goods.

Persons C is an accessory to murder. Person D is a murderer.

So, according to your syllogism, Wikileaks is an accessory to murder in this case.

29 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:13:59pm

Obdicut,

Imagine this is blackmail, okay?

Creep A finds out the dirty secret. He tells it to creep B. Creep B shares it with creep C, who actually engages in the blackmail.

Creep C is definitely to blame, but so is creep B.

If Creep C is caught,

What charges would be given to A, B and C.
Who would get the harshest penalty?

30 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:18:32pm

re: #28 Obdicut

And? Why on earth do you think you're explaining yourself by saying that? Manning wasn't leaking a story, he wasn't revealing something in specific, he was leaking everything he could get his hands on.

Sure. Person A committed no crime.

Person B is guilty of theft and selling stolen goods.

Persons C is an accessory to murder. Person D is a murderer.

So, according to your syllogism, Wikileaks is an accessory to murder in this case.

You are so fast, forgive me I just woke up and are still on my first copy.

We seem to agree here, 'D'would receive the harshest penalty and rightly so.


Manning could have gone to the NYT or anywhere else, I don't know his motivations. However he chose wikileaks, and the next leaker who comes along may do the same.

What was considered traditional has no bearing on what is or will be.

31 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:18:47pm

re: #29 ozbloke

You're switching rather abruptly between moral and legal fault. Creep B would bear no legal fault. He's bear an enormous ethical fault.

32 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:19:49pm

re: #30 ozbloke

PIMF: s/copy/coffee/g

33 Obdicut  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:19:59pm

re: #30 ozbloke

We do not agree. Please stop asserting that we agree when we don't.

When you say this:


The Guardian did publish the cable willingly.
Is there is any fallout, to me it should be laid at their feet.

You are assigning all penalties to the Guardian. To Person D. And none to anyone else.

Why?

34 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:25:51pm

re: #31 Obdicut

You're switching rather abruptly between moral and legal fault. Creep B would bear no legal fault. He's bear an enormous ethical fault.

This cable produced a lot of media.

This was considered the wikileaks 'Collateral Murder' equivalent of the Iraq video.

This would have been better known as The Guardians Collateral Murder video, as they published it and have now said they published it first.

I suggest my last sentence is accurate.
This is where I started, perhaps not in the most eloquent way.

35 Usually refered to as anyways  Fri, Jan 14, 2011 12:30:47pm

re: #33 Obdicut

We do not agree. Please stop asserting that we agree when we don't.

When you say this:

You are assigning all penalties to the Guardian. To Person D. And none to anyone else.

Why?

You keep saying that, I say there is fault all round.
Yes, I used the word 'any' poorly.

I say, as in the analogy, the D the Guardian has the largest portion of the blame, as they made the cable public.

Do we agree on that?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Leon Bridges, Keite Young - Like a Ship (Official Audio) Leon Bridges is proud to support the Truth To Power Project. Learn more and donate here: truthtopowerproject.com Official audio for "Like a Ship" by Leon Bridges & Keite Young. Listen & Download “Like a Ship" out now: leonbridges.lnk.to Amazon ...
Thanos
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 268 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Lake Street Dive Covers Carole King’s ‘So Far Away’ to Salute 50th Anniversary of ‘Tapestry’ Lake Street Dive a new arrangement of the classic King track on the eve of "Tapestry" hitting the half-century mark in February 2021. The group has proudly worn its Carole King influence on its collective sleeve, asking if the ...
Thanos
2 days ago
Views: 268 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210228Saturday we put together the temporary auxiliary filter.Thanks to the electric sump pump, it runs about 12-14 hours a day, sunny or not.Since it’s flowing through a garden hose, it runs about ¼ of its capacity.That happens to match the ...
Dangerman
2 days, 17 hours ago
Views: 314 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 •
Lord Huron - Not Dead Yet (Live on Jimmy Kimmel Live!) “Not Dead Yet” (Live on Jimmy Kimmel Live!) Stream/Download “Not Dead Yet” here: lordhuron.lnk.to Tickets, season passes, and merch for Alive From Whispering Pines Livestream Series available at lordhuron.com​ Connect with Lord Huron:lordhuron.com​facebook.comtwitter.com instagram.com Lyrics: All messed up, with ...
Thanos
2 days, 20 hours ago
Views: 345 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
I Wrote a Book, Check It Out and Pre-Order It!I recently completed my first novel entitled, "Blind Spot." You can find the link here. Take a look and if you like what you see, go ahead and pre-order it. inkshares.com
rhoffman
3 days, 12 hours ago
Views: 384 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 5 •
Pino Palladino + Blake Mills + Sam Gendel - Djurkel (Live) Pre-order the new album “Notes With Attachments” available March 12: pinoblake.lnk.to Shop merch: blakemills.lnk.to Follow Pino:Instagram: pinopalladino.lnk.toFacebook: pinopalladino.lnk.toTwitter: pinopalladino.lnk.toSpotify: pinopalladino.lnk.to Tidal: pinopalladino.lnk.to Amazon: pinopalladino.lnk.to Pandora: pinopalladino.lnk.to YouTube Music: pinopalladino.lnk.to Follow Blake:Instagram: blakemills.lnk.toTwitter: blakemills.lnk.toSpotify: blakemills.lnk.toApple Music: blakemills.lnk.toAmazon: blakemills.lnk.toSoundcloud: blakemills.lnk.toPandora: blakemills.lnk.toYouTube ...
Thanos
4 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 706 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
Molly Tuttle, Sierra Hull, Sarah Jarosz -Salt CreekMolly Tuttle, Sierra Hull and Sarah Jarosz playing "Salt Creek" during the Music City Bandwidth's virtual show from The East Room in Nashville on October 15, 2020
Thanos
4 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 467 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Black Pumas - I’m Ready (Live on the Late Late Show With James Corden) "I'm Ready" is available on the GRAMMY-nominated Deluxe Edition of the Black Pumas debut album. The Deluxe Edition includes 11 bonus tracks (3 brand new songs, 4 covers, and 4 live recordings) and is available now in 2xLP, 2xCD ...
Thanos
6 days, 20 hours ago
Views: 742 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Tomorrow - Jimmy Wahlsteen, Vincent VegaProvided to YouTube by Epidemic Sound Tomorrow · Jimmy Wahlsteen · Vincent Vega Epidemic Presents: Crates (M. Bison Edition) ℗ Epidemic Sound Released on: 2020-03-13 Producer: Kasper LindgrenComposer: Jimmy Wahlsteen Auto-generated by YouTube.
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 944 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210221The waterfall bilge pump died three weeks ago.We're trying something new.Saturday we test installed two tiny aquarium pumps to get the waterfall going again.These pumps are very small but are designed to run all the time. Bilge pumps aren't. Though ...
Dangerman
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 914 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 0 •