the lonely photographer wrote:
a lot of photographers get bullied too Jordan

It's why myself, and many others I talk to (off the forums) don't bother posting much. Better places for feedback and to chat photography with much less drama and being jumped on than here. Not worth it.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
You have it backwards.

JordanK wrote:
Not from what I've seen. I will add that a lot of photographers are also snarky.

As you said, you haven't been here long. 

And, I guess you haven't been paying attention to those whiny posts started by photographers, "models should do this/they should be that," etc, etc, when they themselves can use some work.

JordanK wrote:

It's why myself, and many others I talk to (off the forums) don't bother posting much. Better places for feedback and to chat photography with much less drama and being jumped on than here. Not worth it.

I'm in San Gabriel Valley, if you come up this way  sometimes we have shoots in the studio with a purpose in mind. I did a fashion show at some big name hotel in San Diego last year...sometimes we go there for events  maybe we can meet

Black Z Eddie wrote:
As you said, you haven't been here long.

And, I guess you haven't been paying attention to those whiny posts started by photographers, "models should do this/they should be that," etc, etc, when they themselves can use some work.

I pay attention and have seem those. I never mentioned that as whining is different than hostility, which is what I was referencing. While I haven't been here a decade like some (you haven't been here so long yourself)....I still have been browsing for many years (before I made an account). Thanks for proving my point though! So quick to jump and look for an argument over some technicality taken way too literally.

JordanK wrote:
I pay attention and have seem those. I never mentioned that as whining is different than hostility, which is what I was referencing. While I haven't been here a decade like some (you haven't been here so long yourself)....I still have been browsing for many years (before I made an account). Thanks for proving my point though! So quick to jump and look for an argument over some technicality taken way too literally.

People are so sensitive nowadays.  I was bringing up a point since you seem quick to take the photographers' side.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
*Despite fewer and fewer males going onto college compared to females, many schools have no boys allowed educational opportunities to help promote girls in education.

*We passed legislation designed to get K-12 education to focus on girls. (and it worked!)

*Under title ix, schools routinely adjudicate accusations of sexual assault in ways the deny the accused (mostly male) due process.  This was done specifically because of gender. 

* Despite and equal right to fight in combat, women are still exempt from selective service registration.

* We have a council for women and girls to represent the female interest in public policy while the same for males has been blocked.

* We have a Department of Women's Health, but no Department of Men's Health.

* We have a Department of Labor Women's Bureau, but no men's bureau.

* Women can often play on men's leagues, but men can't play on women's leagues.  (PGA - LPGA for example)

* We have a few laws advantaging women owned small businesses over male owned.

*  It's legal to charge men higher car insurance because they have higher claims.  It's illegal to charge women higher health insurance premiums because they have higher claims.  (and more mandated  "free"services)

*  Women are less likely to receive a prison sentence for the same crime compared to men and when sentenced tend to receive notably lighter sentences.

* Men are victims of violent crime more so than women and have 4-5 times the risk of being murdered, yet we have violent crime legislation aimed specifically at lowering crime against women, no legislation aimed at lowering the incidence of crime against men specifically.

*  Men's sports are often cut under Title IX when more males choose to participate in athletics, yet having wellness programs such as aerobics be 90% or more female, is perfectly acceptable.  There was talk of placing quotas on men going into STEMs, but majors like women's studies, nursing psychology, sociology, etc. being female dominated is fine.

etc. etc......



Herman, it seems to me, MM having a forum for female models only, fits right in.

You have some valid points and I understand you perspective.  However, I wonder: Is it not true that the pay scale for women doing the same job for a man is usually lower than the man's pay?
 
Is/was it not true that schools did not have many opportunities for girls to play sports and woman's teams were considered a waste because girls don't like sports anyway? 

Is it true that the physical stature of women tend to make them preferred victims for crimes of opportunity?  Or is that just a false perspective? Maybe I imagine it that when the Philly News Radio warns people of a serial criminal along the joggin paths in the city, the known victims are usually female.  I remember a woman I knew, in the medical profession, that alway kept a $20 bill in her hand when walking to or from the hospital in the odd hours.  She could throw it at an attacker and run while he chased the bill.  (The robbers are mostly men, aren't they?) I have never once kept a bill in my hands while walking in the city or anywhere else.

Does male behavior increase their chance of being murdered?  Are they doing risker things and going risker places?  Are they more likely to physically defend themselves than flee?  I mean, I don't know, but I have seen a lot more men pic fights than women.  Some women are perfectly willing.  It just seem like it is the less likely outcome most of the time. 

Usually a woman that can compete with men is a significantly gifted player and women will not overrun the league.  However, given size and strength characteristics of the genders, could unlimited access to female sports teams for men change the nature of the game?  Wouldn't it be better to develop co-ed leagues with guidelines on team composition and playing time then let women's t4ams be overrun?

In past generations, men had all the power and the money and got to do as they pleased.  Are men really devastated by having separate sports teams?

On the surface you make a good point about nursing and other female dominated professions.  Again, I have to ask, is that based on some discrimination in the system or gender preferences?  I have known a couple of male nurses. They usually left the floors quickly for administrative positions.  Then doctors seem to be male dominated.  Though less now.  Are you saying we should open the nursing field forcibly to men?  Then wouldn't the opposite also be justified in male dominated professions?  I have also known a few female carpenters over the years.  They were damn good at the meticulous stuff.  Never heard one shout from the house under construction, "Ah damn!  Well, it doesn't matter, you can't see it from my house."   It is kind of rare that I see women in a trench pushing pipe around.  Any idea why that might be?

I get it.  Sometimes when we try to fix something we cause other problems.  I have given up doing my own plumbing because I know that I don't have the knowledge to fix certain things without using brute force and brute force might mean that I have to call the plumber for an even bigger job.  But if the plumber brings in a female to fix the pipes, I have no problem with it.

As far as women on MM having their own place, that is just an extension of a safe place that women have always gathered to talk things over without the interference of men.  That forum is the modern equivalent to the bathroom. Or book club.

JordanK wrote:

I pay attention and have seem those. I never mentioned that as whining is different than hostility, which is what I was referencing. While I haven't been here a decade like some (you haven't been here so long yourself)....I still have been browsing for many years (before I made an account). Thanks for proving my point though! So quick to jump and look for an argument over some technicality taken way too literally.

PRICELESS!!!  Others have been saying the same thing to the same person for a while now, JordanK but that person always has a smart ass comeback and denies he's the problem.

Like you, I've spoken to both current and former members about the exact issues you cited.  Everyone agrees it one of the things that's killing the site but people like that one don't care.  Keyboard bravado!

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You have some valid points and I understand you perspective.  However, I wonder: Is it not true that the pay scale for women doing the same job for a man is usually lower than the man's pay?

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal to have different pay scales for the same work based on sex.  The pay gap as measured by the DOL, despite much propaganda to the contrary, does not measure men and women doing the same work for the same hours.  It is simply a comparison of what all full time men earn compared to what all full time women earn.  Those who illegally pay either sex more, are subject to prosecution under criminal law and may have to pay damages under civil law.  The equal pay act is in my opinion good, equal legislation that promotes equal opportunity.  I wish most of the laws I mentioned previously were as equal.   

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Is/was it not true that schools did not have many opportunities for girls to play sports and woman's teams were considered a waste because girls don't like sports anyway?

Sure, some schools had that attitude, and I'm all in favor of equal opportunity in athletics   Equal opportunity however, doesn't necessarily lead to equal participation.  As I said, we are one sided in how we view this.  More males choosing something is bad, but more females choosing something, even astronomically more so is not considered bad. I think Title IX as originally stated was good, equal legislation. Rulings since that time have been sadly unequal due to politics and special interest intervention. 

Schools offering no boys allowed educational opportunities to advance girls, is in my opinion a clear violation of the original title ix legislation.  It discriminates on the basis of sex, not only that but it discriminates in favor of the sex that is doing better, not the sex that is doing worse. However, these days, discrimination against males is is fine under Title IX, because they are considered the advantage sex despite all the policies advantaging females in education and despite the fact girls are doing much better than boys in education.   


I could address your other points, but won't because I think it misses the point I was trying to make and gets off topic.  People who support policies that discriminate on the basis of sex or race or religion, etc. typically think these policies are justified.   Have you ever heard someone say they advocate advantaging women owned businesses over male owned even though they think it's not justified?  History is filled with examples of people justifying policies of discrimination.  History almost always views these negatively from a later perspective. 

My point however, isn't to say gynocentric attitudes or policies are justified or unjustified.  My point is for good or bad they are a part of U.S. culture and most western cultures, so MM 's one-sided forum policy isn't unique., it's fairly typical.   

Personally, I think there are some very valid evolutionary, biological and historical reasons why such gynocentric attitudes and policies have come to be.  There are reasons men tend to be providers and protectors and very legitimate reasons why societies have cared more about women's safety  (Think reproduction, and men's physical strength).  Of course there are also political reasons such as wanting to win the women's vote and feminist lobbying efforts.  That's how our system works.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I get it.  Sometimes when we try to fix something we cause other problems.  I have given up doing my own plumbing because I know that I don't have the knowledge to fix certain things without using brute force and brute force might mean that I have to call the plumber for an even bigger job.  But if the plumber brings in a female to fix the pipes, I have no problem with it.

It don't matter if you're an amateur or not  ,in an old house   that rusty rotted old pipe will break off inside the wall  and invariably you'll  tear out the wall to get to the pipe and when you do you'll find other problems like pinhole leaks rotten studs, you'll decide to replace all the rotten wood. and wont stop till you replace every goddamn piece of lumber. termite damage galore.... it's gonna cost you

JordanK wrote:
So this is what MM has become. I haven't been around long, but have been told of what a magical place it once was. Now it's nothing more than snarky models and fighting photographers. What a shame.

With all due respect I think You have confused the MM forums ( in which less than 1 percent of the MM membership participates in ) with the overall site itself

Forum relations and discussions between members may well be in sad shape these days but I can attest to you that in certain locations the overall site is still well meeting its primary objective - and that is to connect photographers and models ....

I will be starting a separate thread about a trip i took to LA last week and the  photographic experiences that I enjoyd with several MM Models...It was pretty great and really renewed my appreciation for this site in general

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You have some valid points and I understand you perspective.  However, I wonder: Is it not true that the pay scale for women doing the same job for a man is usually lower than the man's pay?
 
.

Actually there are only 2 Professions in our Society where Women( edit ) are expected to  generally earn more than Men

Fashion Modelling and ....

I am sure most people know the other ( as it has been around a long time )

Garry k wrote:
Actually there are only 2 Professions in our Society where Women generally earn more than Men

Fashion Modelling and ....

I am sure most people know the other ( as it has been around a long time )

That may be the case up in the great white north, but here in the U.S. we have many jobs in which women out earn men including but not limited to:

Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Videographers, System's Engineers,
https://www.monster.com/career-advice/a … utearn-men

Farmers, ranchers, agricultural engineers, first-line supervisors of personal service workers, medical assistants, order clears, Health care support occupations, sewing machine operators, construction laborers, wholesale retail buyers,
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/10-jobs … n-men.html

Computer, automated teller and office machine manager, conservations scientists, foresters, phlebotomists, funeral service managers, computer network architects, emergency management directors, medical records and health information technicians, glaziers, transportations, storage and distribution managers, vehicle and mobile equipment mechanics installers and repairers, dietitians and nutritionists, chemical processing machine setters and operators, proofreaders and copy markers, construction equipment operators, ambulance drivers, ambulance attendants, tire builders, event planners, correspondent clerks, agricultural inspectors, installations and maintenance helpers, semiconductor processors, telecommunications line installers, crossing guards, first line supervisors of protective service workers, construction trade helpers, explosives workers, motor vehicles electronic equipment installers, mining machine operators, structural iron and steel workers, brickmasons, roofers 
https://www.businessinsider.com/gender- … emasons-35

The three you mention also apply here.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
That may be the case up in the great white north, but here in the U.S. we have many jobs in which women out earn men including but not limited to:

Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Videographers, System's Engineers,
https://www.monster.com/career-advice/a … utearn-men

Farmers, ranchers, agricultural engineers, first-line supervisors of personal service workers, medical assistants, order clears, Health care support occupations, sewing machine operators, construction laborers, wholesale retail buyers,
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/09/10-jobs … n-men.html

Computer, automated teller and office machine manager, conservations scientists, foresters, phlebotomists, funeral service managers, computer network architects, emergency management directors, medical records and health information technicians, glaziers, transportations, storage and distribution managers, vehicle and mobile equipment mechanics installers and repairers, dietitians and nutritionists, chemical processing machine setters and operators, proofreaders and copy markers, construction equipment operators, ambulance drivers, ambulance attendants, tire builders, event planners, correspondent clerks, agricultural inspectors, installations and maintenance helpers, semiconductor processors, telecommunications line installers, crossing guards, first line supervisors of protective service workers, construction trade helpers, explosives workers, motor vehicles electronic equipment installers, mining machine operators, structural iron and steel workers, brickmasons, roofers 
https://www.businessinsider.com/gender- … emasons-35

Good Point - I guess I should have worded it differently like "Professions where it is expected/allowed that Women will earn more than Men ( everything else being equal )

I think with respect to mainstream employment - Equality with respect to wage earning  between the genders is the growinig  expectation of society ( and labour legislation is reflective of that ) - I mean of course that the expectation would be that given everything else being equal ( ie education , skills , experience etc ) pay would be the same  between males and females

Of course though there are professions wihere one gender ( or the other ) might dominate the employment positions or on average could have more seniority and in the case of the latter may well earn more

I am going to look further into the link you have cited

Garry k wrote:

Good Point - I guess I should have worded it differently like "Professions where it is expected/allowed that Women will earn more than Men ( everything else being equal )

I think with respect to mainstream employment - Equality with respect to wage earning  between the genders is the expectation of society ( and labour legislation is reflective of that ) - I mean of course that the expectation would be that given everything else being equal ( ie education , skills , experience etc ) pay would be equal between males and females

Of course though there are professions wihere one gender ( or the other ) might dominate the employment positions or on average could have more seniority and in the case of the latter may well earn more

I am going to look further into the link you have cited

Again, I can’t speak to Canadian employment law, but here in the U.S. women are allowed to earn as much as men in all professions. For over 50 years we’ve had laws making it illegal to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex.   (Equal Employment Act of 1963.   I think you Canadians have similar legislation called the pay equity act.)

There are a whole host of reasons why men and women may on average earn different salaries in different professions, including hours worked, time out of the work force, career longevity, affirmative action, risk tolerance, employer bias, social expectations, desire to raise kids, women owned business advantages and physical strength differences to name a few.   You might notice that some of those jobs used to be more labor intensive and male dominated, but automation has changed that.   

I read a really interesting article about how the Ford Foundation paid for women’s studies positions, not to support women’s rights, but to encourage more cheap labor. (When women started entering the workforce in greater numbers at that time, it was mostly as unskilled labor).   These issues are often more complex than they first appear.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Again, I can’t speak to Canadian employment law, but here in the U.S. women are allowed to earn as much as men in all professions. For over 50 years we’ve had laws making it illegal to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex.   (Equal Employment Act of 1963.   I think you Canadians have similar legislation called the pay equity act.)

There are a whole host of reasons why men and women may on average earn different salaries in different professions, including hours worked, time out of the work force, career longevity, affirmative action, risk tolerance, employer bias, social expectations, desire to raise kids, women owned business advantages and physical strength differences to name a few.   You might notice that some of those jobs used to be more labor intensive and male dominated, but automation has changed that.   

I read a really interesting article about how the Ford Foundation paid for women’s studies positions, not to support women’s rights, but to encourage more cheap labor. (When women started entering the workforce in greater numbers at that time, it was mostly as unskilled labor).   These issues are often more complex than they first appear.

Yes

Well Stated

Garry k wrote:

Well Herman ....that is your interpretation of what went down ( and for some reason you almost sound bitter )

But I note that really You have only been a member of this site since 2010 and thus really can't speak about the good old days when Female Models were far more active in the forums ( and in this forum )

I have no doubt that in all your years of experience you have met some radical feminist who claims that all women have been abused and have also met some radical anti feminist who claimed all men have been abused .....but you know we are talking about facts and statistics not isolated individual opinions

The White Knight bit was the general interpretation of the meaning.

And I lurked for over a year before I joined, but you are correct in pointing that out, "In my experience". However even back then complaints of model non-participation in forums was ongoing. And even just back in 2010 there were a lot more that were active than today. In fact I still keep in touch with a couple that have left MM.

And I am not talking about years of personal experience. I am talking about professional workshops in the mental health field. And as I said. If you are careful how you manipulate the criteria, facts, figures and statistics can be made to prove anything. "Mothers milk is the leading cause of drug addiction, since we know for a fact that almost every addict has had mothers milk." "A sexually provocative look, or a wolf whistle is sexual abuse, therefore 9 in 10 women have been sexually abused". "Only the terminally ugly have never been subjected to a look, or a wolf whistle, so they have been discriminated against, and abused as human beings."  (exaggeration, only slightly, to make a point.) Well maybe not so much, since I was at a conference were any unwanted look was deemed "sexual assault".

And even in this little thread there has been some selective picking and choosing what is deemed true facts and figures.

Laura UnBound wrote:
So y'all gonna talk about modeling then or just keep complaining that we got a separate forum you're not allowed to trash and that there are models out there who don't care about your opinions?

Sadly not likely to happen.

the lonely photographer wrote:

Damn   Herman you pretty much summed up what this inarticulate knuckledragging mouth breathing troglodyte has been thinking.

Your welcome.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I don’t think a one-sided forum for female models only negatively affects me.   To what degree it bothers me, it bothers me the same way most policies of discrimination bother me.   Whether such a one-sided policy is justified or not, to me the bigger issue is it’s representative of and a reaction to the politics that have caused division, rather than cooperation and are part of the reason MM is declining and why many have left.

Amen bro.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
edited

I get it.  Sometimes when we try to fix something we cause other problems.  I have given up doing my own plumbing because I know that I don't have the knowledge to fix certain things without using brute force and brute force might mean that I have to call the plumber for an even bigger job.  But if the plumber brings in a female to fix the pipes, I have no problem with it.

As far as women on MM having their own place, that is just an extension of a safe place that women have always gathered to talk things over without the interference of men.  That forum is the modern equivalent to the bathroom. Or book club.

Many, many good points that would make an interesting discussion. One at a time. And some of your questions are actually statements of fact.

Perhaps this thread needs to just continue to deal with some of these issues. and the rest of the forum can get into as Laura asked dealing with model issues. Many of the snarky photographers and models have left the building (MM), so perhaps Modeling can be discussed. And since there are 2 points of view (actually more if you include MUA's etc.) some disagreements are bound to happen. If people actually listen to each other instead of trying to bully their point of view, we might all learn something.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
These issues are often more complex than they first appear.

Bingo.

Herman Surkis wrote:

Sadly not likely to happen.

well at least you're admitting you're causing the problem.

Todd Meredith wrote:
PRICELESS!!!  Others have been saying the same thing to the same person for a while now, JordanK but that person always has a smart ass comeback and denies he's the problem.

Like you, I've spoken to both current and former members about the exact issues you cited.  Everyone agrees it one of the things that's killing the site but people like that one don't care.  Keyboard bravado!

Tsk tsk.  How quickly you try to forget.  You were told by an Admin it's people like you're why the secret forum had to be created.  And, to add insult to injury, you were ordered to not post in that thread any further.

Let's take a drive down memory lane, shall we:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19749770

Garry k wrote:
Personally I think it would benefit you to research the safety of female models in our society quite a bit more before expressing such an opinion

+1
+1
+1

JordanK wrote:
So this is what MM has become. I haven't been around long, but have been told of what a magical place it once was. Now it's nothing more than snarky models and fighting photographers. What a shame.

It was actually FAR more vicious a long time ago, sadly.. this is tame. It was always that way, but the majority of those users were drowned out by content that wasn't.

Karl Johnston wrote:

It was actually FAR more vicious a long time ago, sadly.. this is tame. It was always that way, but the majority of those users were drowned out by content that wasn't.

I agree some topics such as model pay were every bit as viscous 10 years ago  as they are now.  (There was no MM utopia, though I do think relations were better and booking shoots was easier). The difference was people didn’t have to worry about getting brigged or kicked out for saying something politically incorrect, and such topics were brought up in forums where everyone was allowed to participate.  That’s no longer the case.

Garry k wrote:

With all due respect I think You have confused the MM forums ( in which less than 1 percent of the MM membership participates in ) with the overall site itself

Forum relations and discussions between members may well be in sad shape these days but I can attest to you that in certain locations the overall site is still well meeting its primary objective - and that is to connect photographers and models ....

I will be starting a separate thread about a trip i took to LA last week and the  photographic experiences that I enjoyd with several MM Models...It was pretty great and really renewed my appreciation for this site in general

Good points.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I agree some topics such as model pay were every bit as viscous 10 years ago  as they are now.  (There was no MM utopia, though I do think relations were better and booking shoots was easier). The difference was people didn’t have to worry about getting brigged or kicked out for saying something politically incorrect, and such topics were brought up in forums where everyone was allowed to participate.  That’s no longer the case.

I think that's something that is indicative of the entire web, not just here .. forums have become very quiet all over. More people seem to gravitate towards these community social circles where articles become comment frenzies.

I see forums less and less in photography communities now. It's almost all blog type comment sections that act in a similar way, with up-down voting kind of threaded system that controls what is seen or participatory. Especially on facebook - filtered comments. So while you do not get "brigged" you do get socially outed or pushed down in the algorithm or however it works

Abbitt Photography wrote:

That may be the case up in the great white north, but here in the U.S. we have many jobs in which women out earn men including but not limited to:

I edited for brevity.

There is another very important reason why many men achieve higher status and salaries.
Men are willing to sacrifice "everything" (family, health, sanity) for their jobs. Women are/were generally too smart to fall for that BS. It is unfortunate that more and more women are rising to the glass ceiling by buying into that destructive BS ideology.

If you cannot depend on a woman to kill herself for the job, why would you pay her the same as a man who would kill himself and everyone else. (Please note sarcasm) Equal performance has little to do with it.

Black Z Eddie wrote:

Tsk tsk.  How quickly you try to forget.  You were told by an Admin it's people like you're why the secret forum had to be created.  And, to add insult to injury, you were ordered to not post in that thread any further.

Let's take a drive down memory lane, shall we:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19749770

Same old broken record, eh, Ed.  Seriously get help - not for anyone else but yourself.

the lonely photographer wrote:
yeah  pretty much so... almost all the photographers have naked women in their ports   so thats the first thing they check to see if they will jump on you or not...

I am still trying to figure this comment out

I have a naked model in my port - does that mean someone is going to jump on me ( or not ) ?

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Tsk tsk.  How quickly you try to forget.  You were told by an Admin it's people like you're why the secret forum had to be created.  And, to add insult to injury, you were ordered to not post in that thread any further.

Let's take a drive down memory lane, shall we:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19749770

Todd Meredith wrote:
Same old broken record, eh, Ed.  Seriously get help - not for anyone else but yourself.

Neh, just a friendly reminder before you going around playing victim and hiding behind the proverbial skirt.

Black Z Eddie wrote:

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Tsk tsk.  How quickly you try to forget.  You were told by an Admin it's people like you're why the secret forum had to be created.  And, to add insult to injury, you were ordered to not post in that thread any further.

Let's take a drive down memory lane, shall we:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19749770

Neh, just a friendly reminder before you going around playing victim and hiding behind the proverbial skirt.

You mean your skirt?  Sorry, won't happen, Ed.  I don't need to hide in the shadows and troll like you. 

So when's that appointment with your counselor?

Todd Meredith wrote:
You mean your skirt?  Sorry, won't happen, Ed.  I don't need to hide in the shadows and troll like you. 

So when's that appointment with your counselor?

Troll?  Really?  All I'm doing is slapping with you facts.

You may be in luck, The Todd Meredith sensitivity training starts next week.

Todd Meredith wrote:

You mean your skirt?  Sorry, won't happen, Ed.  I don't need to hide in the shadows and troll like you. 

So when's that appointment with your counselor?

Give it a rest Todd

Garry k wrote:

Give it a rest Todd

Congrats on being elected to be Eddie's keeper and assistant hall monitor. 

Wishing you too all the best!

I noticed you didn't have a comment for Ed...you must be close...

Black Z Eddie wrote:

Troll?  Really?  All I'm doing is slapping with you facts.

You may be in luck, The Todd Meredith sensitivity training starts next week.

Ed, 

You are definitely good for a laugh.  Please make sure you get a seat up front when I conduct that sensitivity training.  I'd hate for you to miss anything.

I'm trying to get Dr Phil on board so you may get that help you need for free.

As for slapping anyone with anything, please wake up. 

Have a wonderful day, Ed!

Todd Meredith wrote:
Congrats on being elected to be Eddie's keeper and assistant hall monitor.

This coming from the guy that consistently hooves to Lonely's aid.

Todd Meredith wrote:
You are definitely good for a laugh.  Please make sure you get a seat up front when I conduct that sensitivity training.  I'd hate for you to miss anything.

Oh, I think misunderstood, which you do quite often.  You are not doing the training.  You are the training.