AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.
All, It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites. I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites). The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is). If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated. No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit? Thanks in advance all for insight, comments, -jamie
I have read on another list this evening that AT&T DSL in SoCal is blocking certain sites within 4chan. J On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:48 PM, jamie wrote:
All,
It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u- verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is).
If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit?
Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
-jamie
-- Joel Esler http://www.joelesler.net http://www.twitter.com/joelesler [m]
Joel Esler wrote:
I have read on another list this evening that AT&T DSL in SoCal is blocking certain sites within 4chan.
I just tested and can confirm the blackhole is in Reno, too. One more reason to dump ATT in addition to their trial dollar-per-gig thing they're doing here. ~Seth
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt. Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc. jamie wrote:
All,
It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is).
If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit?
Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
-jamie
It should be blocked at the complaining customer port. Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement. On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote:
All,
It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is).
If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit?
Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
-jamie
Jamie, Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't have their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of moving, so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving. Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc. jamie wrote:
It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.
Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com <mailto:shon@unwiredbb.com>> wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote: > All, > > It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) > has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites. > > I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that > these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each > city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites). > > The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but > this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature > of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, > that is). > > If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / > direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated. > > No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a > Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action > and, who knows - suit? > > Thanks in advance all for insight, comments, > > -jamie >
Shon Elliott wrote:
Jamie,
Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't have their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of moving, so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
This is definitely not "them moving": traceroute: Warning: img.4chan.org has multiple addresses; using 207.126.64.182 traceroute to img.4chan.org (207.126.64.182), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 67.118.62.1 207.264 ms 258.116 ms 174.721 ms 2 63.201.16.134 141.205 ms 46.683 ms 41.622 ms 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * Traceroute from an ATT DSL account. ~Seth
Seth, I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing that out. However, I believe the reason they are being blocked at AT&T is the main reason I supplied on my first post. The DDoS attack issue is the main ticket here. It's not because of content, or to piss people off. It's to protect their network, as any of you would do when you got DDoSed on your own networks. It's damage control, essentially, until they find out who is involved and block them, then they'll likely lift the block. This ISN'T the first time this has happened. Especially to 4chan. You can check their status page and see most of the entries revolve around them being down because of DDoS attacks. Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc. Seth Mattinen wrote:
Shon Elliott wrote:
Jamie,
Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't have their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of moving, so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
This is definitely not "them moving":
traceroute: Warning: img.4chan.org has multiple addresses; using 207.126.64.182 traceroute to img.4chan.org (207.126.64.182), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 67.118.62.1 207.264 ms 258.116 ms 174.721 ms 2 63.201.16.134 141.205 ms 46.683 ms 41.622 ms 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * *
Traceroute from an ATT DSL account.
~Seth
'Wireless backbone'? K. I have a dozen confirmations off list in every time zone. SANS ISC is soliciting technical reports on this; It's on the EFF's Radar. "This is not a drill" If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even make my list), you'd have one less customer and quite likely a Tortious Interference claim.. And, as a (wired) backbone arch, if I ever filtered a host (btw: there are five IPs in that /24 being filtered by T) that cut off every customer's access to that host or group, I'd expect to not have a job anymore. If I wanted filtered Internet, I'd sign up for Prodigy. Check http://status.4chan.org - they're not moving anything at the moment, and confirm the filtering. Debate away, I'm off to bed. I think 4chan's reaction to this will be bigger than the story itself - No need for me to argue what will soon be in the News Cycle. -j On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:
Jamie,
Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't have their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of moving, so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote:
It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.
Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com <mailto:shon@unwiredbb.com>> wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote: > All, > > It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) > has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites. > > I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that > these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each > city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites). > > The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but > this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature > of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, > that is). > > If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / > direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated. > > No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a > Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action > and, who knows - suit? > > Thanks in advance all for insight, comments, > > -jamie >
SANS ISC isn't soliciting technical reports, we're interested and looking at the issue with a particular eye to 4chan's history of pulling pranks. Then there is the blocking because of the DoS angle, which I admit, doesn't seem to fit the facts in this case. There are AT&T people on this list, I presume, who can speak to the issue if need be. I'd prefer the SANS ISC not get "name dropped" as if we lend credibility to this. We're looking, sure. That's it. j jamie wrote:
'Wireless backbone'?
K.
I have a dozen confirmations off list in every time zone. SANS ISC is soliciting technical reports on this; It's on the EFF's Radar.
"This is not a drill"
If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even make my list), you'd have one less customer and quite likely a Tortious Interference claim..
And, as a (wired) backbone arch, if I ever filtered a host (btw: there are five IPs in that /24 being filtered by T) that cut off every customer's access to that host or group, I'd expect to not have a job anymore.
If I wanted filtered Internet, I'd sign up for Prodigy.
Check http://status.4chan.org - they're not moving anything at the moment, and confirm the filtering.
Debate away, I'm off to bed.
I think 4chan's reaction to this will be bigger than the story itself - No need for me to argue what will soon be in the News Cycle.
-j
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:
Jamie,
Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't have their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of moving, so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote:
It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.
Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com <mailto:shon@unwiredbb.com>> wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote: > All, > > It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) > has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites. > > I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that > these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is,
each
> city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites). > > The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but > this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature > of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, > that is). > > If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / > direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated. > > No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a > Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action > and, who knows - suit? > > Thanks in advance all for insight, comments, > > -jamie >
I must have misinterpreted "send us something confirming the AT&T 4Chan outage / isc.sans.org" message. My bad. On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Bambenek <bambenek@gmail.com> wrote:
SANS ISC isn't soliciting technical reports, we're interested and looking at the issue with a particular eye to 4chan's history of pulling pranks.
Then there is the blocking because of the DoS angle, which I admit, doesn't seem to fit the facts in this case.
There are AT&T people on this list, I presume, who can speak to the issue if need be.
I'd prefer the SANS ISC not get "name dropped" as if we lend credibility to this. We're looking, sure. That's it.
j
jamie wrote:
'Wireless backbone'?
K.
I have a dozen confirmations off list in every time zone. SANS ISC is soliciting technical reports on this; It's on the EFF's Radar.
"This is not a drill"
If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even make my list), you'd have one less customer and quite likely a Tortious Interference claim..
And, as a (wired) backbone arch, if I ever filtered a host (btw: there are five IPs in that /24 being filtered by T) that cut off every customer's access to that host or group, I'd expect to not have a job anymore.
If I wanted filtered Internet, I'd sign up for Prodigy.
Check http://status.4chan.org - they're not moving anything at the moment, and confirm the filtering.
Debate away, I'm off to bed.
I think 4chan's reaction to this will be bigger than the story itself - No need for me to argue what will soon be in the News Cycle.
-j
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:
Jamie,
Unfortunately, that's not easy with wireless backbones. The customers don't have their own "port". I also know for fact that 4chan is in the process of moving, so what you're seeing could just be that. Them moving.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
jamie wrote:
It should be blocked at the complaining customer port.
Not nationwide, and certainly not without announcement.
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com <mailto:shon@unwiredbb.com>> wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
Regards, Shon Elliott Senior Network Engineer unWired Broadband, Inc.
All,
It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears
jamie wrote: that
these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is,
each
city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is).
If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit?
Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
-jamie
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, jamie wrote:
If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even make my list), you'd have one less customer and quite likely a Tortious Interference claim..
I don't know if they still do it, or if their old "Abuse/Security guy, Travis Haymore" is still around, but above.net had a history of null routing "destinations they didn't like", which meant if you were a customer (even a multihomed one) and sent them traffic for those destinations, you wouldn't get there. Getting the list of null routed space from above.net was not trivial. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:05 -0700, Shon Elliott wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt.
...have you ever heard of forged packet headers? Just saying. William -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-800-688-5018
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, William Pitcock wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:05 -0700, Shon Elliott wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that single IP until the attacks let up. It was a decision I made with the gentleman that owns the colo facility currently hosts 4chan. There was no other way around it. I'm sure AT&T is probably blocking it for the same reason. 4chan has been under attack for over 3 weeks, the attacks filling up an entire GigE. If you want to blame anyone, blame the script kiddies who pull this kind of stunt. ...have you ever heard of forged packet headers? Just saying.
everyone who *still* refuses to block spoofing should think hard about it. you know who you are. -Dan
Apparently not Back to the kids' table ! On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:38 AM, William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net
wrote:
There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:05 -0700, Shon Elliott wrote: that
single IP until the attacks let up.
...have you ever heard of forged packet headers? Just saying.
William -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-800-688-5018
Chris, Have you even read any of the other posts on here. I have been talking about spoofed packets in this thread multiple times. I do know what it is. I would appreciate you not making stupid comments like that. chris rollin wrote:
Apparently not
Back to the kids' table !
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:38 AM, William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net <mailto:nenolod@systeminplace.net>> wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:05 -0700, Shon Elliott wrote: > There has been alot of customers on our network who were complaining about ACK > scan reports coming from 207.126.64.181. We had no choice but to block that > single IP until the attacks let up.
...have you ever heard of forged packet headers? Just saying.
William -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-800-688-5018
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:
Chris,
Have you even read any of the other posts on here.
I fade in and out
I have been talking about spoofed packets in this thread multiple times.
man engrish
I do know what it is. I would appreciate you not making stupid comments like that.
As was stated before, this isnt about you In other news, it looks like ATT is quietly removing filters from cities. Chicago still showing down
Appears to be up from here - I'm in suburban Chicago. traceroute to img.4chan.org (207.126.64.181), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 172.31.129.1 (172.31.129.1) 0.602 ms 1.383 ms 1.638 ms 2 172.31.128.1 (172.31.128.1) 7.337 ms 10.254 ms 10.638 ms 3 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 17.694 ms 18.092 ms 18.473 ms 4 adsl-99-135-157-254.dsl.emhril.sbcglobal.net (99.135.157.254) 19.318 ms 20.903 ms 22.319 ms 5 68.250.251.2 (68.250.251.2) 24.326 ms 25.967 ms 27.654 ms 6 bb2-g9-0.emhril.sbcglobal.net (151.164.94.164) 29.195 ms 11.296 ms 16.196 ms 7 * * * 8 te7-2.ccr02.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.11.237) 17.772 ms 19.221 ms 21.926 ms 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 te9-4.mpd01.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.217) 56.902 ms 59.571 ms 60.826 ms 12 te8-3.mpd01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com (66.28.4.174) 46.897 ms te7-3.mpd01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.66) 46.735 ms te4-3.mpd01.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.58) 46.319 ms 13 38.104.35.234 (38.104.35.234) 46.997 ms 34.910 ms 35.444 ms 14 * * * 15 * * * -----Original Message----- From: chris rollin [mailto:2600hz@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 2:09 AM To: Shon Elliott Cc: nanog@nanog.org >> nanog Subject: Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed. On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:
Chris,
Have you even read any of the other posts on here.
I fade in and out
I have been talking about spoofed packets in this thread multiple times.
man engrish
I do know what it is. I would appreciate you not making stupid comments
like that. As was stated before, this isnt about you In other news, it looks like ATT is quietly removing filters from cities. Chicago still showing down
It seems like my blocking of 207.126.64.181 is pointless, because Level3 is also blocking the entire net 207.127.64.0. All I can say is.. oh well. Nothing we can do about it. jamie wrote:
All,
It appears at AT&T (including DSL, and my own home service via u-verse) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.
I have confirmed this with multiple tests. (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).
The sites I know of I'll list below (see Reddit for a discussion), but this is clearly and absolutely unacceptable. Please, comments on the nature of the sites are OT.. Let's keep this thread that way. (Away from being OT, that is).
If any T folk are around, and have gotten wind of this (all comments / direct emails will be off record), a reply would be appreciated.
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit?
Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
-jamie
http://status.4chan.org/ On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, jamie wrote:
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E on a Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing, resolution, action and, who knows - suit?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4163/saturday-night-live-ernestine
participants (10)
-
chris rollin -
goemon＠anime.net -
jamie -
Joel Esler -
John Bambenek -
Jon Lewis -
Seth Mattinen -
Shon Elliott -
Tim Burke -
William Pitcock