

Weddings Used To Be Sacred And Other Lessons About Internet Journalism - crapshoot101
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/weddings-used-to-be-sacred-and-other-lessons-about-internet-journalism/

======
205guy
A lot of people are judging the personalities involved, the event itself, and
the media behavior, but few objective facts are revealed. More worrisome is
that objective facts are seemingly being covered over with weasel words.

First off, I am not at all impressed how Mr. Parker shifts the blame onto the
property owners and others. I did see some of the inflammatory comments on
early stories where people assumed it was public land. But even as private
land, its use is still restricted by regulations because it is in the coastal
zone. Just because it is private land doesn't mean owners and their renters
can do anything they wan with it--thank goodness. California recognizes the
fragility and ecological value of the coastal areas and regulates them. I
don't care whether he knew about that or not, he, his hired staff, and the
owners he worked with are all to blame for not knowing and following
regulations.

He also tries to dodge blame for the campground issues and the owners'
responsibility, then get sympathy for being strong-armed by the owners into
paying up or getting cancelled. All I can say is that he could afford the
lawyers, and if you want grandiose, you have to deal with ALL of the issues.
His failure to do that does not garner my sympathy.

I would also take issue with "It was an homage to the natural environment,"
when he admitted the whole scenery and costumes were fake. In other words, it
was quite literally the Hollywoodization of the natural environment, not an
homage. What he fails to understand, ultimately, is that a an all-night
costume party for 350+ people is not compatible with the natural environment--
no matter how much he wants the reader to believe so or how much he has paid
to make it so.

A lot of HN commenter also seem bowled over by all these words, and just
because someone says they didn't harm the redwoods, they believe him.

I'm holding out for a scientific assessment of the situation. I do know
redwoods (and sequoia) have shallow roots and can be harmed by trampling. So,
were the root areas (usually within a 20-30 ft radius) of the trees properly
protected during the decoration and the event?

One of the first stories I saw about this had pictures of the fake walls right
up to a tree. So, in the opinion of an arborist specialized in these trees, is
that damaging or not?

Same for the trout and other riparian species. Are they present or is this
potential habitat? Did the setup or the event or the dissasembly impact the
streams or drainages? One original article said they diverted streams; was
that accurate or not? Mr. Parkers explanations about different kinds of trout
and what's endangered or protected are not very clear--in fact they seem
intentionally confusing. He does say that biologists inspected the streams and
found no sedimentation. OK, what about immediately before the event (since
decorations weren't finished until the last minute) and after the event, and
again during the tear-down.

I'm totally willing to believe the environmental damage was minimal. The
campground had been recently repaved and bulldozed in places. The set-up crew
was at least aware of environmental concerns, regulatory agencies were keeping
watch, etc. And yes the media reaction was totally overblown, but doesn't that
go with the territory of being rich and somewhat famous, especially when
pulling off high-profile events? But I'd still like to see the official report
about the damage before believing this one-sided argument.

~~~
sneak
> I would also take issue with "It was an homage to the natural environment,"
> when he admitted the whole scenery and costumes were fake. In other words,
> it was quite literally the Hollywoodization of the natural environment, not
> an homage.

These are not mutually exclusive, you know.

~~~
slyn
Literally the whole point of the hollywoodization of a natural environment was
to prevent the damage done to an actual natural environment of having 350+
people there for a wedding, something both recommended by a conservation group
and then gone over in the article.

------
anigbrowl
That's quite interesting and enlightening; although the lesson this case seems
to be 'beware of the company you keep' since he ended up getting the blame for
the poor ecological stewardship and greed of the inn on whose land the event
took place.

I'm struck by this quote: _Economically speaking, I profited handsomely from
the destruction of the media as we knew it. The rest of the world did not make
out so well, and society certainly got the worse end of the bargain. The
decentralization of media got off to a promising start, but like so many other
half-baked revolutions, it never fulfilled its early promise. In its present
form, social media may be doing more harm than good._

I think this is rather true. Although there was stupid tabloid media long
before social media came along, it's increasingly become the norm on the
internet. I know a little of how he feels as I spent years trumpeting the idea
f public comments on newspaper articles and so on....and now I use Stylebot to
hide them from me, because 99% of what's written in news article comments is
hideously stupid. Rather than elevating society, the internet and social media
has basically digitized the mob and given everyone a megaphone.

~~~
tsotha
I don't think it's true at all. The media made just as many mistakes before
the internet. The difference is there wasn't anybody to call them on it.
Recall CBS tried to throw a presidential election with obviously forged
documents, something they would have gotten away with a few decades earlier.

~~~
anigbrowl
The media is not a monolith. Go read some history, and figure that a) people
have been pulling stunts like that since the US was founded and b) they were
typically exposed by competitors in the media.

Back in 1798, no less a person than George Washington was griping that the
Democrats (under Thomas Jefferson - not to be confused with today's Democratic
party) were a bunch of malcontents whose primary object was to overturn the
government:
[http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/collection/post_pres_179...](http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/collection/post_pres_1798sep30.html)

~~~
tsotha
Well, okay, but this all just buttresses my point that the new media is no
worse than the old media. In a lot of ways it's much better.

------
timtadh
Make sure you read the end, it is the best part of the essay:

''' The more we depend on social networks and other online services to share
content with friends and family, the more we risk that our content
inadvertently becomes public. The enforceability of intellectual property laws
around user-generated content — our photos, videos, and other content — is one
of the best protections we have. The media has, in many cases, chosen to
broadly construe all content shared via these networks as “public” when in
fact much of it is private, and the copyright on that private material belongs
to the creator. Sharing photos on Facebook should no more constitute a public
license to use those photos than sending them over email.

The ubiquitous license agreements and privacy policies that online services
force their users to enter into should be scrutinized by the courts around the
principle of adhesion, and if the courts are unwilling to reconsider the
status quo then congress should intervene with legislation limiting the scope
and enforceability of these agreements. We also need to be willing to consider
that only Congress can prevent the abuse of governmental power that is used to
coerce online services into to turning over data in a wholesale manner.

I am certain that social networks, technology companies, and
telecommunications companies would prefer not to kowtow to governments around
the world, but operating a service on the scale of Facebook or Google puts
these companies in the crosshairs of governmental agencies of all kinds. Once
a company has reached this scale, only governments pose a meaningful
existential threat. It is therefore incumbent upon the legislature to craft
appropriate boundaries that strike a balance between the valid needs of
governmental authorities and the equally valid privacy demands of Internet
users.

In the end, the lesson learned from my wedding was something much less obvious
than the “parable of excess” that was claimed. Rather, the democratization of
the media that I idealized in my youth when it was just a distant, blurry
dream, suddenly seems much less worthy of idolatry now that it’s become a
stark reality. The lesson for me, felt acutely over the past two weeks, ended
up being a familiar moral to a familiar story: “Be careful what you wish for —
you might just get it.” '''

~~~
bad_user
Using copyright to protect one's privacy is stretching the law, as copyright
is not meant for protecting privacy, but rather for protecting against
unauthorized distribution. The 2 issues seem related, but they really aren't
the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such.

And I'm willing to bet that Facebook's user agreement, in so far as copyright
is concerned, is entirely enforceable, because the service couldn't operate
otherwise and also because, no, you're not forced to agree to it, you're not
forced to use Facebook and you're not forced to distribute pictures from your
wedding on Facebook.

This isn't to say that we don't need privacy in the online world. We do need
it, but you also can't reasonably expect to be protected by privacy laws, once
you distribute your pictures to a big list of people, many of which are
probably strangers. Once that distribution happens, your pictures are no
longer private, no matter what you think about it.

Even if governments and technology manage to somehow eliminate the
unauthorized redistribution of photos (something unlikely because it's a
people problem, not a technological one), people can always describe what
they've seen in _freaking words_ and other people can always take those
stories, flourish them a little and redistribute them further. And what then?
Put a ban on freedom of speech?

This is a slippery slope, because really, the need for protecting intellectual
property is very, very different from our need of privacy and privacy is
totally incompatible with wilful distribution of info to other people.

------
mixmastamyk
Another example of why you should not trust anything you read or see on TV w/o
time and/or corroborating evidence.

TL;DR:

Summary Points

\- The wedding site was chosen because it had been previously developed, so
there was no environmental impact. The site was not public property, it was a
private, for-profit, campground, which was mostly paved in asphalt and or
cleared of all foliage. Development only occurred in cleared dirt and asphalt
areas.

\- The natural environment was not harmed, despite widespread claims to the
contrary. There was no harm done to redwood trees, other plants, or animals.
There were no endangered species on or near the property.

\- We were conscientious about protecting the environment, locating the site
with the help of Save the Redwoods League and soliciting advice about how to
avoid harming the redwood habitat.

\- Hundreds of articles were written in the days following the wedding, yet
only one reporter contacted us for comment. Most of the information contained
in these articles was erroneous. No original reporting was done, no interviews
were conducted, and no fact checking occurred.

\- We voluntarily agreed to cover $1 million in penalties related to the
Ventana’s lack of development permits and past violations. We also volunteered
to contribute $1.5 million in charitable contributions serving the coastal
region of the Monterey Peninsula.

~~~
waylandsmithers
It's always seemed to me that news stories and features tend to be wildly
inaccurate when they happen to be on a topic you know a lot about.

~~~
afriesh123
Michael Crichton: “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In
Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business.

You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of
either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually
presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet
streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a
story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read
as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than
the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

------
incongruity
Wait, wait, one of the guys who was behind facebook and the creator of napster
(both of which use the internet to profit from other people's information or
creative efforts) wants us to feel bad that something _he_ held sacred was
violated on the internet?

Um, what?

~~~
tlrobinson
Did you read the article?

 _In the end, the lesson learned from my wedding was something much less
obvious than the “parable of excess” that was claimed. Rather, the
democratization of the media that I idealized in my youth when it was just a
distant, blurry dream, suddenly seems much less worthy of idolatry now that
it’s become a stark reality. The lesson for me, felt acutely over the past two
weeks, ended up being a familiar moral to a familiar story: “Be careful what
you wish for — you might just get it.”_

and

 _In particular, we need to consider stronger privacy laws here in the U.S., a
basic right to privacy along the lines of the laws enjoyed by the citizens of
most Western European nations. We are all at risk of becoming “public figures”
in a world where the media has expanded to include nearly everyone. In such a
world, our defamation laws need to be updated to provide individuals with the
protection from public persecution that they deserve. We also need to
reinforce our personal privacy by beefing up the intellectual property laws
that govern the personal content that we generate and share via services like
Facebook._

EDIT: and

 _Economically speaking, I profited handsomely from the destruction of the
media as we knew it. The rest of the world did not make out so well, and
society certainly got the worse end of the bargain. The decentralization of
media got off to a promising start, but like so many other half-baked
revolutions, it never fulfilled its early promise. In its present form, social
media may be doing more harm than good. Perhaps we should have expected this —
technology always leads the way, society and government inevitably play catch-
up._

~~~
incongruity
Yes. I did read it – and I stand by what I said. I find it hugely disingenuous
and/or self-absorbed that only now that the shoe is on the other foot, Mr.
Parker changes his tune... only after getting rich by exploiting things not so
distant from that which he wants to curtail _now_.

 _Edit:_ The additional quote does nothing to change my point. He doesn't
dispute what I said about him profiting from his actions – but he still wants
_personal_ sympathy.

I agree with his larger point, privacy matters, but I find this messenger to
be distinctly self-serving in all of his actions.

~~~
joyeuse6701
I think it's fair, if you're the underdog against the proverbial fatcats and
then you realize in a turn of events that you're the fatcat. I think it better
he come to his senses than remain ignorant and hold to some naive principle he
had as a kid. Let's get off that high moral horse, people change opinions and
judgments, it wouldn't be prudent to hold that against them.

~~~
incongruity
Except the revelation rings hollow when he's still sitting with a fortune made
by doing so. He's trying to have it both ways and has no qualms getting his
and then fighting to keep the spoils (i.e.: his lavish life and the privacy
surrounding it are _absolutely_ spoils of his previous actions)

It's hardly (just?) a high moral horse. I dislike the whole do as I say and
not as I do attitude.

~~~
joyeuse6701
I'd agree with you IFF he was asking for compensation after being wronged. As
you pointed out, he exploited, in one aspect or another, reaping the benefits
at the expense of others. Conversely it happened to him.

It is fair to point out the observation post introspection of being on both
sides of the equation, exploiter and exploited.

It is not be fair to ask for compensation for exploitation and not willing to
give compensation for exploiting.

------
resu_nimda
For the most part, I agree with him, he was essentially violated by a
sensationalist online media that spews cut-and-paste drama with absolutely no
due diligence ("viral" is particularly evocative here).

That said, it does sound like a pretty extravagant over-the-top wedding, if a
more tasteful one than your typical Kardashian affair. I suspect people
latched onto that bit and just ran with it. I can't reconcile his talk of
nature and sanctuary with the extremely manufactured and "faked" nature of the
event. Why not have a low-key ceremony in an actual beautiful natural area?

~~~
aasarava
So why does it matter that his wedding sounds like an extravagant affair to
you? There are plenty of people who want to spend a lot of money on their
weddings or other events and have a vision of it that pleases them.

I think we should all expect the right to spend our money the way we choose
(within legal and ethical boundaries) without being second guessed and
attacked by a public mob.

Now, if you had wanted to, you could have penned an editorial exploring
whether there's hypocrisy in his decision to "manufacture" the scenery. But
the real issue is why so many people who call themselves members of "the
media" get to publish scathing blog posts that they pass off as news articles
without doing any actual journalistic research.

~~~
pyoung
At some point, when you become famous enough (or infamous, in Parker's case),
things like extravagant weddings are going to get attention from the media,
whether you like it or not. I would not be entirely surprised if Zuckerberg
took this into consideration when he planned his surprise, low-key backyard
wedding. In the wake of the great recession, which most of America is still
slowly recovering from, fancy cars and nice suits aren't going to win you
sympathy from the American public. If you care about the public's perception
of you, then adopting a low-key lifestyle would be a prudent effort in
managing that. If you don't care, then feel free to live extravagantly, and be
prepared to either tune out the blogs and trolls, or have some thick skin and
learn to deal with them.

~~~
tomjen3
The public is simply jealous that they don't have them money to have a wedding
like that and so they feel like they have a right to complain about it.

------
j_s
See HN reaction to the Atlantic story here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5824276](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5824276)

and here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5820590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5820590)

------
parfe
While HN isn't responsible for the content of the articles it linked to, the
community here sure took the opportunity to write, and upvote, some awful
things.

I wish there was a sort of pinned story feature to offer a community
retraction that stays on the front page for a substantial amount of time. Sort
of a group apology for promoting comments like "I disagree. To me, this is the
story of a single a-hole." and "Fuck you Sean Parker."

~~~
corresation
Why? Naval gazing? Proving someone wrong?

If the NY Times wrote an article claiming that Sergey Brin dumped raw sewage
from his yacht, the responses would be based upon the _assumption of accuracy_
of that story. If the story _isn 't_ accurate, it will quickly be corrected
(and legal avenues should be exercised, such as libel lawsuits), which has to
some degree happened in this case.

But what are people really supposed to do? For every story everyone must stay
quiet? Let claims bake for a period? Put a disclaimer "If this story is
accurate..." before every statement? That should be presumed.

In the end, though, while I had no comment on the original story (it seemed
like a classic "they're rich...get 'em!" kind of story), I certainly don't
find Parker a more reasonable chap after this 10,000 word outing. His argument
is essentially-

a) Steelhead trout are stupid anyways. I'm humorously paraphrasing, but they
_are_ an endangered/threatened species, and you can't simply lump them in with
Rainbow trout and pretend it's all good regardless.

b) Ignorance of the law is no defense. Saying that a group was formed before
you were born makes one sound a bit like a jackass (maybe that's what the NSA
is claiming? The various rights were written before they were born, so...)

c) He's good because he leveraged someone _else 's_ significant mismanagement
of the forest, therefore he has no culpability. This is a bit of a tragedy of
the commons thing, but his argument seems to be that all of this development
happened in a vacuum and he just happened to be a sad passerby who might as
well make use of it.

I don't think he needs to apologize to anyone, and it sounds like the land was
horrendously mismanaged by the company that owns it, however this doesn't get
sympathy.

~~~
philh
To paraphrase you... what was Parker really supposed to do? Every time he
wants to have an event on private property, he has to check that the owner
isn't violating any of a myriad regulations imposed by countless regulatory
bodies? That doesn't seem feasible.

~~~
corresation
I don't really fault him. He was the beneficiary of someone else's
mismanagement of protected lands, however.

 _Every time he wants to have an event on private property, he has to check
that the owner isn 't violating any of a myriad regulations imposed by
countless regulatory bodies?_

He had a multi-million dollar event. Yes, in such cases -- especially where
the use is atypical -- the event planners _do_ perform significant legal and
liability checks to ensure that the use is compliant with all laws and
regulations.

~~~
gknoy
Given that he had rented the facility from a hotel that had done that in the
past, and the atypicality was mainly in the secrecy and set design they
wanted, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that the hotel had all
of its permits in order. It's a reasonable mistake -- though one that, as you
point out, should have been caught by his wedding planner.

------
rogerbinns
I really hate how the American legal system lets the guilty get away with
things.

In this case that hotel was very guilty of years of violations, and got away
free. Didn't cost them a penny. You see those settlements all the time where
the guilty party made a payment but admitted no guilt. And of course the
government has unlimited deep legal pockets and can make life hell for people.
It is in their interest to overreach which makes it even more expensive and
threatening for the innocent or those guilty of only a little bit.

------
frogpelt
About wedding costs:

The median cost of a wedding is somewhere around $18,000 according to
TheKnot.com while the median net worth is around $57,000. In other words, the
median wedding cost / net worth ratio is around 1/3.

Mr. Parker's wedding costs were around 1/168th of his net worth. It wasn't
extravagant by that measure.

~~~
coldtea
> _Mr. Parker 's wedding costs were around 1/168th of his net worth. It wasn't
> extravagant by that measure._

That's a silly measure, thought, because it would imply that a $1 billion
dollar wedding for a $3 billion dollar net worth guy would not be
"extravagant".

The costs are not tied to the net worth, they are about sitting so many
people, feeding them, closing the venue, the flowers, photographer etc. Poorer
people make do with less expensive restaurants and venues, and richer people
go for more expensive. Still, there's only so much you can spend of a venue,
food, wine, etc before it becomes extravagant.

Similarly, a guy that makes $100 million per year does not eat meals that are
2500 times more costly than those of a guy that makes $40.000 a year.

If he did, that would put those meals in the 25.000-50.000 dollars per meal
region. Which would be extravagant by any measure.

~~~
rdouble
_a guy that makes $100 million per year does not eat meals that are 2500 times
more costly than those of a guy that makes $40.000 a year_

According to the receipts posted to rich kids of instagram, many actually do!

~~~
coldtea
I'd say those are special occasions -- that's why they post the receipts too.
Do they eat $30,000 dollar meals daily? I doubt it.

------
Avshalom
Wait when were weddings ever sacred?

How willfully ignorant of humanity do you have to be to think that a wedding
like that was going to just go without comment?

~~~
joyeuse6701
>Wait when were weddings ever sacred?

As for Catholicism, since it's a sacrament, I'd say since the inception of
that religion which was some time ago.

>How willfully ignorant of humanity do you have to be to think that a wedding
like that was going to just go without comment?

Victim blaming, but to answer your question at face value, somewhat ignorant.

------
breadbox
"I have known the media to be irresponsible at times, but this represents a
new low."

Actually, I doubt that. I'm willing to concede that it has become more
prevalent recently, but it seems more likely that this level of
irresponsibility has always been present in the media to some degree.

------
thret
"I was backed into a corner and had no choice but to give in to any demands
made of me by the hotel or the commission."

The California Coastal Commission waited until 20 days before the wedding to
blackmail him for one million dollars, simply because he could afford it. How
on earth do they get away with this abuse of power?

~~~
pyoung
It sounds like they were not aware of the wedding until late in the game. If
you follow the arc of culpability throughout the post, Parker assumed that the
Hotel was adequately permitted for such activities. When it turned out that
they were not, the Hotel forced Parker into a indemnification agreement
(presumably by threatening to cancel the wedding), which means he can't sue
the Hotel. Then the Hotel refused to pay the CCC fine, preferring to cancel
the wedding instead. So his only option at the point was to pay for the fines
himself.

My take away from this is that the hotel is to blame. They did not have the
required permits (despite an assumption on Parker's part that they did), and
they refused to rectify the situation when it was discovered that there were
issues. Parker seems to go easy on them, my guess is because he has some
connections to the owners (in my opinion, his best defense would be to turn
around and point fingers at the Hotel owners).

------
scelerat
I sense that the backlash, well-informed or not, was fueled more by the
extravagance of the event than its environmental impact.

------
cafard
When last were weddings sacred, in the sense of not open to public comment? In
Edith Wharton's _The Age of Innocence_ the mother of the bride is horrified at
the notion that reporters might take a picture of her daughter and put it in
the newspapers; and surely they would have. There is the folk tradition of the
"shivaree".

Second, "Our wedding was the antithesis of the technology-infested world we
live in; a world that I have played a role in creating." No, not really, any
more than Marie Antoinette was a milkmaid. In a world insufficiently infested
with technology, rich people don't get married in the woods. In fact, apart
from the men going there to hunt, they don't spend much time in the woods.

------
crapshoot101
All in all, I was surprised/impressed that he was willing to acknowledge that
he's been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the media disintermediation he
helped to bring about, in many ways - and now he's finally seeing a backlash
from it. The standard point about clickbait and the Buzzfeedication of media
is a reasonable one, but until stories / media can earn online by maximizing
for something other than CPM, this will continue. I don't have any solution,
just acknowledging the problem.

------
Zimahl
I have to wonder how much of a backlash would've been created for someone
other than Sean Parker. I don't think this would've been much of a story if
not for 'The Social Network' portraying him as an egotistical, asshole,
pseudo-con man (which he very well might be, I don't know). But then comes
along a story of him doing what seems like egotistical, asshole _stuff_ and
it's too much to resist for the media. The narrative is already there so it
writes itself.

------
Malloc_Leake
The remarkable thing is, everyone had already forgotten about how much they
hate Whoever Parker until he wrote this. If he really wanted to be left alone
he would have just shut up about it. This is just attention grabbing and
trying to re-write history, painting himself as a sympathetic figure that
shouldn't be picked on for living an extravagant life while the majority of
his countrymen are getting kicked out of the middle class.

------
uptown
I'm not going to read his article - but why is he still fanning this fire?
People get worked up over things, then they move on. This is likely to just
extend the time-period over which this will fade.

~~~
crapshoot101
You don't think that if that you were subject to a torrent of abuse you'd want
to fight back about it, especially when additional evidence suggests that the
abuse was based on bullshit / a desire for linkbait?

~~~
uptown
Maybe so, but to what end? He knows what he believes. Who really cares what "a
mob of Internet trolls, eco-zealots, and other angry folk from every corner of
the Internet" think? I wouldn't.

------
gojomo
9600 words!

The very rich are different from you and me... no one dare edit them for
length.

That said, I am sympathetic to Parker's point that social media/journalism
has, with all its benefits, also introduced certain pathologies for which we
haven't yet evolved countermeasures.

~~~
cududa
I'd happily read 9600 words written by anyone with thoughtful, interesting and
captivating opinions.

------
pbreit
I like Sean but I think he could have headed off a lot of criticism with way
fewer words, probably sooner.

------
mrtriangle
TL:DR The media is a bunch of haters, our wedding wasn't as ecologically
devastating as it was played out to be. Why'd you people use so many
expletives about us?

~~~
mcherm
Also, "almost none of the journalists bothered to ask us for comment". That
was the one part that surprised me; I would have expected better.

~~~
jacalata
I'm sure that if they had all called for comment he would have been outraged
that people couldn't leave him alone on his honeymoon.

~~~
darkarmani
That's a typical smear tactic. Raise a hypothetical as a certainty that is
impossible to disprove, but makes the person look terrible.

The proof lies with the people making the extraordinary claims. Reporters
could have easily waited to get all of the facts and if that means waiting to
their are back from their honeymoon, so be it. Why give a pass to incompetent
reporters?

------
rdouble
This dude needs something to do!

