URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID54
Thread Number: 798
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RangeRover on 01-13-05 at 11:10 AM
This article was in the NY Post this morning...as it appears Jon cannot speak to the press any longer he has gotten "friends" to do the dirty work.
_________________________________________________
January 13, 2005 -- 'AMAZING Race" bad- guy Jonathan Baker is getting more than he ever bargained for when he decided to become the show's most memorable villain.

Jonathan, 42, has been at the center of a reality-TV storm pretty much since he jumped out of the latest cast of competitors and developed a reputation as the meanest man on TV.

As the show has unreeled over the weeks, the drumbeat for Jonathan's head has grown louder among fans — and now he has begun to get word out through friends that he was only playing a part.

In fact, friends say, when the part got to be too much for him — the night he shoved wife Victoria Fuller in anger — he tried to quit the show. But producers talked him into staying in the race, telling him the series had "never had a character like him."

Jonathan has conceded to friends that it was originally his choice to "play" a villain on TV because it was a good way to stand out from the reality-show crowd.

Week after week, viewers have watched as Jonathan berates Victoria and taunts competitors.

It's all gone too far now, he tells friends, but Jonathan is restricted by the contract he signed with CBS from talking publicly about how the role-playing got out of hand. The fact that Victoria has been portrayed on the show as an abused spouse upsets Jonathan the most.

"If she hadn't been there , he would have owned the part ," says one friend. "He would have been the most infamous character on reality TV ever.

"But how do you own a piece-of-s—t character like a wife abuser? At the end of the day, he's just hoping that the press doesn't crucify him," says the friend.

"They're not like that in real life," says actor Jimmy Van Patten, the son of "Eight is Enough" star ##### Van Patten, and a longtime friend of the couple. "Honestly, I've never heard him speak to her like that."

Van Patten fears he may have accidentally influenced Jonathan by mentioning that playing a bad guy is the best job in a TV show or movie.

"My father always said that the easiest role to play is a bad guy," says Van Patten. "It's the most interesting, the most fun and it's the easiest. Jonathan may have heard me say that or learned that from me because I've played a lot of bad guys and it is more fun."

"He played the game as hard as he could, did it all in fun and took it and himself too seriously," says another of Jonathan's friends. "But the people at CBS knew what they wanted and it's all heightened reality from a storyline.

"As much bad behavior as there was, there was an equal amount of good that didn't make it into the show," says the friend.

Meanwhile, on this week's episode, Victoria for the first time was shown getting in a few licks of her own when she taunted her husband for bobbling a challenge.
___________________

So for those keeping count of the excuses:

1. It was the editing
2. It was a disease
3. It was the drugs to treat the disease
4. I was playing a "character"
5. CBS MADE him
6. Jimmy Van Patten
7. Victoria is all at fault, she always is.

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by okaychatt on 01-13-05 at 11:20 AM
Jontheass must be a relative of P.T. Barnum - "A sucker is born every minute."

Nope. He's an abusive jerk.

As for van Patton's excuse - you idiot - abusers HIDE their behavior when with friends.

Not buying it, J.


Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by motormouth on 01-13-05 at 11:25 AM
The fact that Victoria has been portrayed on the show as an abused spouse upsets Jonathan the most.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but what I am hearing is that he thinks she is not guiltless, and shouldn't be pitied. Of all the things to be upset about??

"If she hadn't been there , he would have owned the part ," says one friend

Again, WTH? If she hadn't been there who would he have had the b@lls to abuse? He is not just playing a villain, he is targeting Victoria to do it!

Thanks for posting the article RangeRover!
It's just amazing to me that anyone can come to this guys defense.


*Courtesy of IceCat*

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Bittergirl on 01-13-05 at 12:51 PM
I couldn't agree more with you all.

Yeah, please, enough EXCUSES about this #####'s behavior already! Quit saying CBS forced him into playing a character. So are we to believe that everyone else is playing a role as well? I seriously doubt it. These jerks need to own up to their own behavior instead of saying "Gee, I thought it would be fun to play the villian!"

And Jimmy Van Patten, close and personal friend of Jon, star of "Lunch Wagon Girls" -- his credibility is somewhere below that of someone who appears on The Surreal Life.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RuffNeck on 01-13-05 at 12:59 PM
WTF, so now it's Jimmy Van Patten's fault. What will this guy come up with next?
"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by NoParole on 01-13-05 at 01:01 PM
While editing plays a large part in establishing TAR characters, I also recognize Jonathan's REAL character coming through (which isn't too far off from the edited one). He's just the abusive, spoiled brat, "it's all about me" type, whom people hate, but unfortunately, reality TV shows love. And people will watch this show just to see if "he'll get his"... In the meantime, remember when JR really got shot on Dallas years ago?... I think Jonathan's close to becoming hated that much, especially by groups or organizations fighting spousel abuse. He might want to invest in some protective gear, and/or go into hiding.
"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RangeRover on 01-13-05 at 01:29 PM
That has already occurred. Here is a copy of an e-mail posted on another TAR board from said organization: (This is from a public board and posted for everyone to see so I don't think this would be considered "private information")


FROM: Esta Soler, President, Family Violence Prevention Fund
DATE: January 2005
RE: The Amazing Race


Like us, I suspect that you have received many calls and emails complaining about the abusive contestant on The Amazing Race. For weeks now, Jonathan Baker has repulsed viewers by verbally and physically abusing his wife, Victoria Fuller.

His behavior is neither unusual nor rare. One in three American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some time in their lives. And it isn't unusual for verbal abuse to become physical and dangerous, as it has with Baker.

Victims and survivors of domestic violence have been especially disturbed by the program, as have many parents who do not want their children exposed to domestic violence. It is a shame. The Emmy-Award winning Amazing Race once had a reputation as an intelligent reality show that was family-friendly. That is no longer the case.

It is especially disappointing that CBS has chosen to air Baker's abuse without also giving viewers information about domestic violence. Baker continues on the program, facing no apparent consequences for his violence. And CBS has taken no steps to condemn his actions or help viewers cope with what they are seeing or learn what they can do to stop abuse. Specifically, viewers would benefit from information on how to protect yourself if you are being abused, how to intervene safely and effectively when domestic violence occurs, and how to talk to children and teens who see violence in their families, communities or on television.

As you cover The Amazing Race, please consider giving your audience the referrals they need. Victims of domestic violence can contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (TTY 1-800-787-3224). And viewers who want to know how they can help stop violence against women and children can visit the Family Violence Prevention Fund web site, at www.endabuse.org. It offers information about what to do if you are experiencing domestic or sexual violence, how to talk to boys about abuse, and how to help stop violence.

---------------

So for those who are affected by this there is some positive way to help others - it certainly has made me realize I should go back to working with those who are its victims, either directly or indirectly.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by ARnutz on 01-13-05 at 03:29 PM
"My father always said that the easiest role to play is a bad guy," says Van Patten. "It's the most interesting, the most fun and it's the easiest. Jonathan may have heard me say that or learned that from me because I've played a lot of bad guys and it is more fun."

Oh please! Has D!ck Van Patten ever played the bad guy? How the he!! would he know?

As for the article... THE CAMERA DOES NOT LIE!!! The things this farkface has said in the heat of the race are NOT play acting!!!


'nutz: Proud member of the inoffensive OT Triumvirate.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by redheaded_sweetheart on 01-13-05 at 11:07 PM
I was thinking the EXACT same thing about Mr. Van Patten being a bad guy...ya' know, he DID yell at those Eight is Enough kids sometimes!
"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by cadfile on 01-14-05 at 00:48 AM
>I was thinking the EXACT same
>thing about Mr. Van Patten
>being a bad guy...ya' know,
>he DID yell at those
>Eight is Enough kids sometimes!
>

There were those scenes when he had "chats" with the kids in his den. They would always come out crying.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Elaine0 on 01-14-05 at 07:58 AM
"If she hadn't been there , he would have owned the part ," says one friend. "He would have been the most infamous character on reality TV ever.


See it is all Victoria's fault. It always comes back to that.

I feel part of the reason she sometimes freaks out like she did this week is because she knows she will be blamed if they don't come in first. She is under constant pressure from him. It is a classic abuse situation that I know from experience. When you are constantly told you never do anything right and are to blame, you keep trying to make every situation perfect even when you have no control over it. Then when something goes wrong you get stressed, which makes you irritable and you lash out at everyone. Then at some point you break down like she did during the shoving incident.

Yes, her attitude this past week was far from ideal. But it is disturbing how quickly many people now feel she is as bad as him and somehow deserves what she gets.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by dragonflies on 01-14-05 at 09:19 AM
"But it is disturbing how quickly many people now feel she is as bad as him and somehow deserves what she gets."

I don't think is a matter of feeling that she deserves what she gets as much as it is people just don't like Victoria either. Is she being abused? Yes! Is she a nice person? No. Should she still get out of the relationship? Absolutely, NO ONE, no matter how "bad" of a person they are deserves to be abused.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by ARnutz on 01-14-05 at 09:55 AM
Very well said! I agree.

Welcome to the boards!



'nutz: Proud member of the inoffensive OT Triumvirate.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by foonermints on 01-14-05 at 08:45 AM
Jonathan is a wife beater.

Plain and Simple. No amount of excuses work. No 'spin' works.

Handcrafted by RollDice
scumbag

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Swami on 01-15-05 at 01:21 PM
I am going to buck the common wisdom here, and come out in semi-support of Jonathan.

He probably is, as NoParole pointed out above (this is a partial quote) a "spoiled brat, "it's all about me" type, whom people hate, but unfortunately, reality TV shows love." This makes it very easy for him to be edited as an abusive, monstrous husband. My point is--you can't tell based on watching this show.

Most people have a dark side within them that in normal life is well controlled. Authors and actors can access this dark side, use it, and then put it back in the "box" quite successfully.

IRL, Jonathan probably is hyper-reactive and dominant to Victoria--but that does not equate to spousal abuse. Actually, I can see a scenario where they had both agreed to "showcase," as it were, the Bad Jonathan. What fun for Jonathan to be in this very unreal situation of racing around the world, and be able to act out every bad boy impulse he has!

Victoria's tears as they raced to that one pit stop where he dropped his bag and she wound up trying to carry both bags--those tears were real. But they were very likely influenced by many things--Jonathan berating her, physical & emotional exhaustion from the race itself, frustration with her own performance, etc., etc.

I am willing to give Jonathan and Victoria the benefit of the doubt here. If friends or family come out and call him abusive--that's different. If there are police reports--that's different. I will not label him as an abuser based on a TV show edited for ratings.




"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Earl Colby Pottinger on 01-15-05 at 07:00 PM
Are you blind? We don't call him abusive because he is loud, self-center or that he blames V for everything that goes wrong.

We call him abusive for his back-handing action shutting his wife up fast, for his shoving of her. And most telling that you never see him act abusive to anyone he thinks may hit bad. A true bad boy will bad mouth off everyone, an abusive person only attacks thoses they think are weak.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by anotherkim on 01-16-05 at 10:04 PM
Um, he runs his mouth at anyone who gets in his way. Who have you seen him back down to so far?


--and Swami isn't blind...those are bifocals that she wears. Be nice to your elders .

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Earl Colby Pottinger on 01-18-05 at 03:31 PM
Yes, I have never seen him bad mouth Lori or Bolo to thier faces. Nor did he yell at the cops when they pulled him over.

Hech, Gus was fat and slow so Jonathan felt safe to attack him, notice he did not attack Hera at the same time. Do that and daddy's protective mode would kick in and Gus would have made a pulp of him.

The pattern is not in who he abuses, it is in who he avoids abusing. The real Bad Boys I have meet would hit on everyone, L&B scores them extra points for being willing to hit on someones so much bigger than themselves.

Bad Boys love danger, Jonathan wimps out on a simple rope climb. It may have been the smart thing to do if he lack the upper body needed, but that would never had stopped a real BB.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Swami on 01-18-05 at 04:59 PM
Than... Huh?


--thanks Kim for the support, adjusts her bifocals, messes up Kim's hair, limps away as quick as she can--

"Have you seen this week's Insider?"
Posted by udg on 01-16-05 at 04:16 AM
Jonathan admits that he's out of control and calls himself "a screamer."

It's not an act. It may not be nearly that bad at home, but it's certainly not an act.


Slice n' Dice's Sigpic Chop Shop 2004

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by okaychatt on 01-16-05 at 11:53 AM
<Jonathan probably is hyper-reactive and dominant to Victoria

And that's not abusive? In my circle, that kind of behavior is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Living with someone like that would create a scenario where the spouse would be fearful and tearful much of the time.

Again, not acceptable.

If someone finds this kind of behavior ok, I have to ask if she would allow herself to live under those circumstances. Wouldn't she prefer finding someone that can control his hyperactivity and urge to dominate? Everyone deserves better than the kind of person Jonathan is.

A reality tv show may have the option of editing, but the behavior must be there to edit.

I do not buy the argument that Jonathan is acting a part, pulling from his darkside. His darkside is his everyday side.


Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RangeRover on 01-16-05 at 01:54 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-16-05 AT 01:56 PM (EST)

Swami, I so respect you and your willingness to actually take a side that is unbiased and well frankly unpopular. But I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

I am not sure how familiar you are with abusers and their character and how the dynamics of relationships and families work when one person in the dominant individual in the relationship so I will assume that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and information regarding the situation.

As someone who grew up in an abusive household I will not go on and on with numerous examples of how we were portrayed to the inside and outside world but never once did anyone of my extended family, friends or even law enforcement ever engage or label us an abusive household. My father was thought of as "crazy" and "psycho" in a loose cannon sort of way by outsiders but none ever expressed concern or fear for either myself or my mother in the 30+ years I lived and remained in contact with him.

People thought he was high strung, prone to temper tantrums and just a little nuts a la how many see Jonathan, but NO ONE ever saw the darker more diabolical side. He threw an entire Thanksgiving dinner table on my mother one year for saying something positive about civil rights. Who witnessed this...just me. He disconnected all the pipes to our home inside one winter in order to drown us but thankfully it was winter and when water hits cold air well you know the drill.

To his family he was just had a "temper" to his friends he was ultra generous, highly amusing and entertaining. His "accidents" such as setting a hammock on fire one 4th of July - the same one my mother was sitting in was just an accident because well he was drunk. Of course so was she as that is how she coped living with this "psycho".

My entire life I spent with shoes by the door of our home in case we had to run...which we did on a number of occassions. When I finally had the bravery to call the police I was discouraged as this is how he disciplined his family and they were not involved in private family matters. You have no idea what happened once they left.

He was always apologetic, generous with gifts following an outburst. He often drank and became melancholy and geniunely distressed and would seek help and for a while all appeared normal until something, anything that stressed him out would cause another series of abusive behaviors.

NOT ONE family member or friend even remotely believed me, my mother kept stum and to the outside world she looked and acted fantastic. Humerous, a great hostess,highly attractive and entertaining they made a charming pair. We had money, good looks, a great house...it came at a price.

After my mother died his restraint on his erratic behavior ended and he no longer could control his rages and he rallied and ranted at anyone who crossed his paths. My personal friends and family friends who were in disbelief or denial final were actual targets or witnesses to these rages and they were appalled. How they handled it was by completely disconnecting from us, from me, as it was obvious their own embarassment and shame effected them and our friendship. People I knew for years literally stopped calling.

After years of living in secret and denial which is what families like mine did I found help and went back to school to pursue an additional degree and teaching certificate so I could help others in similiar situations.

I have said before we don't know the private personal side to Victoria and Jonathan's relationship but I have a hard time believing he is "acting". His behavior is very similiar to those who abuse as it relates to how one handles stress in uncontrollable situations.

At home where Jonathan and Victoria have a better sense of control (which is very important in these type of relationships) he is probably a much calmer easier to handle man but given the pace and extreme situations he is exposed to in TAR it magnfies the behaviors he restrains in his normal life.

I hope this helps you understand why many of us are so distressed at what we are witnessing. The manner of how he behaves, speaks and acts as well as Victoria's own behavior is highly exemplary of someone who is in an abusive relationship.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by ARnutz on 01-16-05 at 03:23 PM
Rangerover,

I am so glad you found the strength to share your story with us. It could not have been easy to live through what you have seen.

My father was an alcoholic and many times he took his frustrations out on my mother (not physically, thank God, but emotionally). I guess we were lucky because he only exhibited this behavior when he was drinking, but it hurt a lot nonetheless. It took a lot of strength for my mother to divorce him and raise 5 kids on her own.

I applaud your strength to move on with your experiences and help others in this situation.

{{{Hugs}}}

~Nutz



'nutz: Proud member of the inoffensive OT Triumvirate.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by AugustGirl on 01-16-05 at 04:10 PM
RangeRover .... big *hugs* to you, and thank you for sharing your story. I also agree that Jonathan seems to not be so much "acting a part", as he seems to be reacting badly to things that are out of his control.

He may be trying to show a "villian" side, but I feel most of his outburts are real and not an act. In my opinion, he is one messed up guy.



"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Snidget on 01-16-05 at 05:03 PM
It appears to me the only "acting" involved seems like he just decided to not attempt to have any self-control. Either he is the world's best actor on earth to be a completely nice guy all the rest of his life and this out of control on the show, or he is drawing on material he uses in RL all too often.

I would think if Jonathan had bothered to let Victoria in on the "I'm just going to act like a big jerk" and he were never like ever in their relationship that she would be behaving differently in response to it. Or she is also one of the best actors on the planet.

And if he didn't let her in on the joke and was suddenly this way with no warning I think her confessionals would be different as well...more of the I have no idea what is up with him.
Snidget

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by okaychatt on 01-16-05 at 05:42 PM
RangeRover - you are a true survivor. You realized you deserved better, and you took steps to create a safe, uplifting world for yourself. Kudos.

Thanks for sharing your experience.



Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Swami on 01-18-05 at 12:08 PM
RangeRover,

I am so sorry your childhood was dominated by a well camoflaged abuser. I very much respect your courage in sharing your story and your opinions on Jonathan. But consider, just as my views of Jonathan are colored by my past experiences--so too are yours.

My sister has been married & divorced four times. Two of these men were abusers, one a gold-digger and the other an amiable enough person but a clueless idiot & spendthrift. (One of these husbands also sexually abused their daughter--to which my sister is still in denial!)

I guess my point is that we all judge people based on our personal histories. Some of us have had some kind of contact with an abuser, all of us have heard or read of such people and are properly outraged by their behaviour. This is normal and a good thing. My problem is that a TV show like TAR aims to create, through editing, archetypes to which we will all react emotionally. This is a tool to boost their ratings. The goal of this show is to create ratings for their sponsors, not to reveal anyone's true character. They are using Jonathan, not revealing him.

On the show, Lori whacks Bolo much more often than Jonathan
does Victoria. Hadyn berates Aaron constantly. Are they abusers too? Or is it only Jonathan who is an abuser because he is more hystrionic?



"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by Cygnus X1 on 01-18-05 at 01:07 PM
I'm not jumping off the Jonathan pile-on anytime soon, and I'm not planning to have J or V over for dinner, but I do concede that Da Schwam has a valid point.

If not for J/V, we'd probably be talking about Ayden/Haron more, or LoBo. But the only ones more delighted with the publicity about J/V...are the CBS brass. Why? Because WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, and we're still watching. More than for J/V, there's no such thing as bad publicity...for the folks on West 57th.

Part of the problem.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by anotherkim on 01-16-05 at 10:03 PM

I agree, Swami. Jonathon is an asswipe and hellishly annoying, but if we've learned anything about "reality" television, it is that you cannot judge the characters' true personality by what you see on TV.


--Some people are like Slinkies... not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by umass on 01-17-05 at 10:49 AM
I believe Jonathan was "acting" at the begining of the race, especially on the Blueline and in Iceland but further in the legs it is the real Jonathan & Victoria.
You really can not hide that kind of behavior unders stressfully moments.
Van Patten maybe his good friend and never seen this "behavior" but that does not mean it does not exsist, Scott Peterson is a perfect example of this type of "acting."
"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 01-18-05 at 12:26 PM
Well, hey, if Al Cowlings can say that O.J. Simpson is a wonderful, swell guy, then that's good enough for me to trust Jimmy Van Patten's word that Jonathan is a wonderful, swell guy!



Scratch and sniff
"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RangeRover on 01-18-05 at 07:01 PM
LAST EDITED ON 01-18-05 AT 08:23 PM (EST)

Sorry but my past experience has absolutely nothing to do with my feelings about Jonathan except in recognition of a type of behavior.

I agree with many experts on the subject who have written letters and are posting on boards all over the internet about domestic violence and how Jonathan's behavior is exemplary of that type of personality.

I will not go into my education or work experience with you to further defend my position only to say that it was because of my history I felt compelled to go beyond personal therapy and enter the workplace as a means of helping other children who are involved in these type of family situations. So my experience simply goes beyond my own frame of reference.

If this was solely because of editing then he is giving CBS an awful lot to work with and some of it just is way beyond a man losing his cool. Believe me or not as I know most people who refuse to accept Jonathan's behavior as more than simply being a jerk will go to any length or find any excuse to validate their postion. That is always the case in any disagreement.

But to say you need police reports or family coroboration is simply ludicrious. That is not the dynamic of most abusive households.

And OJ wasn't guilty because a jury found him not guilty or because he wasn't guilty? Which was it? As this argument is largely turning out to that equivalent.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 01-18-05 at 11:19 PM

>And OJ wasn't guilty because a
>jury found him not guilty
>or because he wasn't guilty?
> Which was it? As
>this argument is largely turning
>out to that equivalent.

My post was a heavy dose of sarcasm poking fun at the part where Jimmy Van Patten said Jonathan is such a wonderful guy. But, using OJ as an example, he's a case where he literally got away with murder, almost like Jonathan is getting away with abusing his wife (I know there's a world of difference between the two cases so save the hate mail).



Scratch and sniff

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RangeRover on 01-18-05 at 11:56 PM
Sorry my response wasn't directed to you but to those in general who continue to think we are just labeling and judging Jonathan unfairly and I was using that OJ reference as an example of how we will continue to argue in circles about his guilt or innocence.

That is how I see the discussion with Jonathan heading. You either think he is or he isn't and nothing changes your mind... much like the OJ opinion.

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by dabo on 01-19-05 at 00:56 AM
Of course, the biggest difference between Jonathan and OJ is with Jonathan we don't know if a crime has even been committed. And, as well, Johnny Cochrane hasn't told us why he's not guilty.


"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 01-19-05 at 01:15 AM
If the backpack doesn't fit, you must acquit...



Scratch and sniff

"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by dabo on 01-19-05 at 01:38 AM
Well, see, now that you've explained that, it's obviously so.


"RE: NY Post Article re: Jonathan...."
Posted by RangeRover on 01-19-05 at 10:16 AM
Now that I can accept... see Johnnie Cochran doesn't lie... so now we know who Pepe really IS!!!