back to article Trump's CNN tantrum could delay $85bn AT&T-Time Warner merger

The very public war of words – and GIFs – between the President of the United States and CNN could pose a threat to the $85bn merger between AT&T and Time Warner. Apparently, White House advisors have been looking at using approval of the merger as a "potential point of leverage" over the news network. While the two media …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Temper temper!

    > "Despite attempts to delegitimize journalists, Americans still mostly trust CNN over Trump..."

    Another faked up poll, this time specifically geared to "prove" CNN is good and Trump is bad. So what else is new?

    Besides, CNN needs no help delegitimizing themselves. Their constant barrage of vicious attacks is becoming embarrassing, not to mention damaging to the careers of those who work there.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      Re: Temper temper!

      When a Trumpster says "vicious attack", s/he merely means "stating facts that are embarrassing or inconvenient to Herr Lügenführer"

      Note the lack of "I'll get my coat" or "Joke alert" icons.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Temper temper!

        What about the embarrassing facts that just forced three CNN reporters to resign in disgrace?

        1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Temper temper!

          Ah, how appropriate.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Temper temper!

            That link? Whataboutism?

            Seriously, am I now to be afraid to use "what" and "about" in sequence, just because they have the same grammar as something bad old Stalin used to do? Really?

            Okay, if you say so.

            Say um, what other terms and isms may we expect to go on your chopping block soon? Inquiring minds....*

            *What's this really about?

            1. Bullseyed

              Re: Temper temper!

              Best part is he used whataboutism in his response to bring up whataboutism to begin with.

              And besides, Stalin is of the same politics as Obama and CNN.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Temper temper!

      The problem is, the press doesn't need to attack Trump, he makes such a mess of things himself, especially how he reacts to "the press".

      He is supposed to be the President of the United States of America and should be above such things, instead he acts like a spoilt bully of a child, making himself a laughing stock around the World.

      Usually an adult, and especially someone in his position, would not demean themselves with such childish acts, they would rebuff any criticism with real facts or be man enough to admit when he has made a mistake.

      Maybe somebody should inform him, that he is now President and he should start acting like one.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Inform Trump?

        Are you drunk? None one on his staff would dare to that. If they did the TiC would respond with an immediate

        Your'e FIRED.

        and then announce that he was sweeping clean on Twitter.

        The Fake News machine would soon make the former staffer unemployable.

        At the moment, the Emperor's New Clothes are the bees knees. Understand?

    3. herman Silver badge

      Re: Temper temper!

      Ayup, the media is largely an echo chamber - they only listen to themselves and therefore think they rule the roost. However, as O'l Donald likes to point out: He is the president, not them.

      It is true that almost half of USAins don't like Donald, but the other slightly larger half like him just fine and the media companies need to accept that if they want to survive, else they will lose a good chunk of their readers, since the constant wailing and railing against the Donald is getting extremely old and boring to everyone.

      1. Just Enough

        Re: Temper temper!

        Did you just make up those figures? Or are you just attempting to provide "alternative facts"?

        63 million people voted for Trump, out of a possible 250 million. Trump got the vote of around one quarter of Americans and 2.8 million less than Clinton. There is no "slightly larger half" that like him.

        Are you suggesting that he's gotten more popular since the election? Most surveys suggest the opposite.

        But I guess this is all fake news?

      2. User McUser
        Megaphone

        Re: Temper temper!

        It is true that almost half of USAins don't like Donald, but the other slightly larger half like him just fine

        So, are you calling Trump supporters fat or are you just bad at math?

        Popular Vote Tallies:

        Trump: 62,979,879

        Clinton: 65,844,954 (2,865,075 more)

        Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html (Oops, CNN again...)

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anti-Trump bias?

    The President has been in a bizarre public spat with Time Warner-owned CNN for what he feels is unfairly critical coverage of his administration.

    It seems you're overlooking the fact that 3 CNN journalists had to resign over their part in creating a fake news story, not to mention senior figures in the organisation admitting that the Trump-Russia links are mostly nonsense.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dRGMME4VnM

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Anti-Trump bias?

      This article might have been written at this time specifically to counter all the bad news at CNN.

      Well, attempt to counter...

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: Anti-Trump bias?

        The resignation of those journalists shows that appropriate controls are in place. If they were as out of control as Trump claims, why would those guys leave? Those who do the same at Breitbart get a bonus, they knowingly publish stories that are completely false because they don't do journalism, they do spin. You may not like CNN's choices as to what to investigate, or to publish, but unlike Breitbart they are not fake news.

        1. herman Silver badge

          Re: Anti-Trump bias?

          Uhmm, maybe the journalists are now being censured because their readers are leaving in droves and CNN is beginning to feel it in the purse? The constant childish and disrespectful rants against the Donald is simply boring and readers don't like that.

          1. Just Enough

            Re: Anti-Trump bias?

            CNN viewership is up in the last year. They are gaining viewers.

            Your attempts to represent your fantasies as facts fool no-one.

            1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

              Re: Anti-Trump bias?

              CNN viewership is up in the last year. They are gaining viewers.

              Liberventionist mindcontrol emitter aka Clinton News Network. A sad statement about Murric, really.

              1. Someone Else Silver badge

                Re: Anti-Trump bias?

                Liberventionist mindcontrol emitter aka Clinton News Network. A sad statement about Murric, really.

                Is there anything in that pile of incoherent gibberish that vaguely resembles a fact?

                Go covfefe yerself!

          2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
            Alien

            Re: CNN losing Readers?

            Errr? But....? I never knew that CNN had a print edition... Well, you learn something new every day (not)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anti-Trump bias?

          > "The resignation of those journalists shows that appropriate controls are in place."

          Controls are nice, but $100M lawsuit threats are even more effective. And they work even when the controls are non-existent.

          1. DougS Silver badge

            Re: Anti-Trump bias?

            You can threaten to sue anyone, but that doesn't mean you will win. Or that you will even sue - Trump is notorious for threatening to sue and then never following through. He knows the press reports the threat but doesn't bother to follow up and see if it was ever filed, so in the public's mind "Trump sued them".

            Of course what works when you're just another big NY developer doesn't work when you're president - the press gives you a lot more scrutiny so they have followed up and seen how empty his threats really are.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Anti-Trump bias?

              > "Trump is notorious for threatening to sue and then never following through."

              Um, Trump didn't threaten to sue (not in this case anyway). It was Anthony Scaramucci who was slandered by CNN, and who made the threat. He had CNN dead to rights too, and they knew it. That's why they caved so quickly.

  3. frank ly Silver badge

    A few years from now ....

    .... I'd like to read the learned analyses of how it happened and what went wrong and why. I'm assuming that I'll still be here in a few years from now and that people will still be writing analyses for public consumption.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A few years from now ....

      Indeed, the real headline of the article seems to be the White House trying to pressurize CNN: "maybe CNN should write nicer articles about Trump if Time Warner wants the merger to be approved quickly, otherwise shame if something bad should happen to the merger ..."

      Not an entirely subtle threat, really, and not making a lot of attempt to judge the merger only on its merits :(

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A few years from now ....

        I'm sure Trump would be okay just seeing the denunciations turned down a notch.

        1. Someone Else Silver badge

          @ Big John -- Re: A few years from now ....

          I'm sure Trump would be okay just seeing the denunciations turned down a notch.

          I'm sure he would. I'm equally sure that Obama would have, also. (He probably could have also done without the Birther garbage that your boy was finally forced to admit was patent bullshit, but I digress....) And I'm also equally sure that both Bushes would have been OK with that too. And Clinton, and Reagan. And Carter. And...

          But you know what? With all the abuse each of those Presidents took, they all took it like the men they were, and while they may have carped about it (publicly and privately), they never took it to the nadir that our Narcissist-in-Chief has taken it to.

          I guess that's the difference between a man, and a boy.

          Something about heat, and a kitchen.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ Big John -- A few years from now ....

            Funny, I must have missed seeing a major TV news network denouncing Obama in any way whatsoever, let alone on a daily basis. Oh sure, there were some criticisms, once it a while. And only on Fox, mind you, the rest are total arse kissers for the Dems.

            But no whomped up fabrications, no suggestions that Obama be checked mentally, no endless fake polling designed to destroy him. Did YOU see any of that, and if so, please provide a link, okay?

            BTW, TV news networks only please. No blogs or other rubbish. ;-/

            1. Just Enough

              Re: @ Big John -- A few years from now ....

              "But no whomped up fabrications"

              That's right. There was some talk about the location of his birth, but it went practically unnoticed and unmentioned by everyone.

              "no suggestions that Obama be checked mentally"

              Perhaps because he doesn't act like he is mentally ill?

              "no endless fake polling designed to destroy him."

              You do know that putting the word "fake" in front of something doesn't automatically prove it's fake?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @ Big John -- A few years from now ....

                > "There was some talk about the location of his birth, but it went practically unnoticed and unmentioned by everyone."

                I recall CNN and their ilk repeatedly stating that all who doubted Obama's two-year-delayed "certificate of live birth" were certifiable. But that's all they said about it. No actual questioning was allowed. Apply lips to Obama's arse, rinse, repeat.

                It's strangely similar to the way the CAGW debate was morphed into "settled science" while the nation was sleeping. That's just how leftists roll. Strongly assert something you wish were true, then simply claim you have already proven your case, and refuse to debate it at all while labeling your former debating opponents as "crazy." Works like a charm if you have command of the major media.

                1. Bullseyed

                  Re: @ Big John -- A few years from now ....

                  Extra amusing since Hillary began the birther thing.

                  And Obama's brother confirmed the supplied document was fake.

            2. Someone Else Silver badge

              Re: @ Big John -- A few years from now ....

              Funny, I must have missed seeing a major TV news network denouncing Obama in any way whatsoever, let alone on a daily basis.

              Do you really expect me to believe that you didn't watch Fox Noise during that entire 8-year period. Shirley, you jest!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ Big John -- A few years from now ....

            obumba was never a man. he was just too stupid to fight the strings controlling him.

      2. GBE

        Re: A few years from now ....

        Not an entirely subtle threat, really, and not making a lot of attempt to judge the merger only on its merits :(

        No surprise there. Subtlety and merits aren't something the current White House is concerned with or capable of: possession of either apparently disqualifies you from serving in the Trump administration.

        Not that anybody possessing either would _want_ to serve in the Trump administration.

  4. Joseph Haig

    Whose tantrum?

    Trump posts an infantile video and then CNN spend the next day talking about nothing else. Who is having a tantrum?

    This pretty much sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgB8z5OOVjQ

    1. BillG Silver badge
      Angel

      Re: Whose tantrum?

      This pretty much sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgB8z5OOVjQ

      That's an interesting video. The CNN commentator, more than once, seems to regret that she has to (forced to?) report on tweets rather than issues.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Whose tantrum?

      In the process, threatening to use their international media platform to publicly shame someone who made a version of the gif if he doesn't comply with their demands.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whose tantrum?

        You mean the guy who was doxxing people, sending their info to 4chan, and publicly calling for violence against them? That guy shouldn't have his public information put out there because... why? Oh right, The_Donald only cares about privacy when it's for their own members. Do as I say, not as I do, like the presidency they hold in such high regard.

        The only mistake CNN made was threatening to do it. They should've just posted his info and moved on.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Whose tantrum?

          Yes, because journalists and broadcasters with national and international reach should behave just like 4chan.

  5. nilfs2
    Facepalm

    Trump is a moron, so are CNN editors

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump is a moron, so are CNN editors

      No, but a moron can be wrong twice. I name no names!

      Trump is no moron, and neither are the CNN editors. Those editors know exactly what they are doing, and that's why it's so bad. You cannot absolve them by calling them morons.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Holmes

    "While the merger had originally been seen as a hard sell to regulators, the parade of business-friendly appointments made by the Trump administration paved the way for an easy path to approval."

    Trump giveth - and Trump taketh away.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Could happen, but I bet AT&T is taking another good long look before ingesting the Time Warner apple. CNN could be a worm.

    2. Bullseyed

      Yep. Obama's position was to block the merger.

      Why does CNN hate Obama?

  7. ShortStuff

    Trump's Tantrum?

    The title says "Trump's CNN Tantrum" ... not an ounce of bias there, right? I guess The Register can be lumped in with rest of the liberal mainstream media.

    1. nijam

      Re: Trump's Tantrum?

      > The Register can be lumped in with rest of the liberal mainstream media

      And that is a bad thing? How so?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Trump's Tantrum?

        Well, it would be nice if the editors here had the courage not to follow the herd so often. But then people like you would disparage them mercilessly. IMO leftists are rather insecure, needing the approval of other leftists on a regular basis. Righties are less dependent on what others think of them. In fact, that's what makes them righties.

        1. Alistair Silver badge
          Windows

          Re: Trump's Tantrum?

          " IMO leftists are rather insecure, needing the approval of other leftists on a regular basis. Righties are less dependent on what others think of them. In fact, that's what makes them righties."

          *sigh*

          Dude. I can tell you are a died in the wool american flag waving righteous type. I have to point out that the American political system has a single point of failure, and it has finally been demonstrated clearly and concisely. What you fail to realize here is that the vast majority of the folks on this site would be crucifying clinton just as vigorously for her failings, and she would by now have been run over by at least a dozen stupid issues and would have stormtoopered her way out of them as she did during the campaign.

          BOTH parties in the united states no longer have any representation of the people in mind. EVER. The Citizens United decision relegated anyone who is NOT a corporation to the status of SLAVE. Which makes the BLM folks the only ones running around with eyes open. But only barely. And they have no idea how to effectively market themselves so that flies about as well as a lead balloon.

          You in your righteous indignation commit all the sins of which you accuse your lefties. In the meantime, you give up more rights, more freedoms, and more individuality every time the money rotates. Good luck.

          Since the people on The Left now hate all the people on The Right and the people on The Right now despise anyone who is not straight, white, churchgoing christian, and the whites hate the latinos, and the blacks hate everyone and no one likes the gays, there is so much "Its THEIR fault" going back and forth between the people not with money or power, the folks with the money and power are just laughing at all the silly puppets fighting in the streets.

          There is a solution to this issue. You are not acting as part of it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Trump's Tantrum?

            > "What you fail to realize here is that the vast majority of the folks on this site would be crucifying Clinton just as vigorously for her failings..."

            Maybe so, but that sure didn't happen to Obama, so I kinda doubt it. And most posters here are crucifying Trump not for any failings, but merely for drawing breath.

  8. Claptrap314 Bronze badge

    For folks on the other side of the pond, conservatives have been calling CNN the "Clinton News Network" since the Clintons were a thing. I find it really weird that people from the land of the Sun and Mirror would fail to recognize the long-run blatant partisanship of CNN. CNN has every right to publish pretty much whatever--but when they try to claim objectivity while doing so, that it a problem.

    What I find fascinating is the subcontext. Everyone knows that WWF & friends are completely staged. The gif could have easily been claiming that the very public antipathy of our president and CNN was staged for the benefit of both.

    That this article completely failed to note that the threat of DOXing might lead to further criminal charges, and that THIS might be an issue as well is interesting, too.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      @Claptrap314

      Funny, I've only heard CNN referred to as the "Corporate News Network". I guess I don't listen to Fox Noise as much as you do....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Claptrap314

        You haven't heard it called "Cable News Network?" That is their actual name.

        1. herman Silver badge

          Re: @Claptrap314

          I know them as the Crap News Network, but then, I'm not an American.

  9. CheesyTheClown

    Please clarify the original claim!

    I read the whole article which appears to be a tantrum about Trump. Ok fine, he's an idiot. The article makes lots of different points. What it doesn't do is connect Trump's idiocy with why the merger would be delayed. Is AT&T considering pulling out? Will there be a conflict of interest that would allow Trump to influence the members of the merger and make them stop CNN from being mean to him and hurting his feelings?

    I found the article entertaining and I certainly have no love for Trump, but...

    What is the connection?

    1. Bullseyed

      Re: Please clarify the original claim!

      There isn't one. No "threat" has ever been made.

      Trump cited Obama's policy of rejecting mergers that harm people on the campaign trail, prior to being elected, and said he would not approve this merger.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Where to start, most US Conservatives seem to think everything that isn't Fox News has a left wing bias when in fact it's exactly the opposite, Fox News is so staggeringly right wing that it is spewing propaganda for the Republicans & Trump like there's no tomorrow.

    Fox News used to claim it was 'Fair & balanced', now who's the hypocritical one? They also tried to claim that they weren't actually a news network as part of a lawsuit.

    CNN never claimed/threatened to DOX anyone or blackmail anyone, they also haven't broken any law or been charged with any crime so what 'further criminal charges' are you inventing?

    1. David Strum

      Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

      No; CNN threatened/pressured a US citizen with Doxing; that's a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. Leftist supporters always twist reality to suite their mind-warped view of truth.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

        Except in the real world, no they didn't.

        Given that you're so convinced this is somehow covered under the 1st amendment, here it is, please explain how it's been violated in any shape or form:

        Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        1. Joseph Haig

          Re: Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

          Except in the real world, no they didn't.

          I presume you are referring to CNN threatening to dox the individual - correct me if I'm wrong.

          I don't know about what the amendments do or do not say but how do you explain:

          "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

          (Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html)

          1. David Strum

            Re: Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

            Yes!!! Exactly - that's a gun to his head.

            If you start to create memes again - we will dox you!

            That's a freaking gun to his head. That's blackmail. If the guy has balls - I'd create or link to another meme - and see if CNN carries out the treat.

        2. David Strum

          Re: Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

          "abridging the freedom of speech,"

          Making a meme - is freedom of speech - you brain-dead cuck.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

            I can't work out if you're being deliberately dense or just can't read properly, the first word, just read the first word of Article 1.

            Here it is -> Congress

            As in:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......

            The article applies to Congress not a private company, please try again you brain-dead Trumpet.

            1. David Strum

              Re: Wrong - it's pure blackmail accroding to US statutes

              "The article applies to Congress not a private company, please try again you brain-dead Trumpet"

              So Congress needs to be protected? Liberals are so ignorant and so freaking dumb. It's for you - you cuck; it's for us; it's for our protection! But if you love CNN so much - keep watching them and be like them.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Fox News used to claim it was 'Fair & balanced'"

      I've just spat out my cornflakes. I can't believe the words "Fox News" could ever be used in a sentence with either "Fair" or "Balanced".

      I need to go for a lie down.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You clearly have nothing to offer, good or bad, so please do.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Fox News.

      Is that the one that can't say China, without putting the word Communist in front?

  11. David Strum

    THE REGISTER IS FAKE! ON THE SIDE OF CNN!

    Reg you are scum!!! WHOEVER WROTE THIS IS SCUM!!! HOW DARE YOU DEFEND CNN!!!

    1. James 51 Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: THE REGISTER IS FAKE! ON THE SIDE OF CNN!

      @Dave You forgot the joke icon.

      1. Michael Strorm

        Re: THE REGISTER IS FAKE! ON THE SIDE OF CNN!

        Signposting jokes is naff, though, not to mention I always found the joke icon a bit too "Colin Hunt" for my taste. (I think it's that "trying-way-hard-to-be-fun" (and oh-so-90s) typeface).

        On the other hand, you can never be sure which side of Poe's law something is on otherwise...

        Edit: ...aaaaand Poe's Law it was. I just looked through the guy's comment history and realise what I assumed *was* meant to be a joke was likely serious. :-O

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: THE REGISTER IS FAKE! ON THE SIDE OF CNN!

      Dave you forgot to take your meds, again.

  12. DougS Silver badge

    If this story is true

    And if Trump's administration actually acted on it in any way (i.e. communicating to Time Warner that the merger will be denied unless CNN goes easier on Trump) rather than just talking about it internally as an option, it would be a violation of the law, and become a matter for Mueller's team to investigate.

  13. Dave Ross

    that time of year

    It's beginning to look a lot like...

    media censorship

    1. David Strum

      Re: that time of year

      Media censorship -- yeah - too right. But the cucks here - the boot licking - cooperate slaves - think the Reg is right on the issue. Trolling should be protected - but the Reg seems to be saying - "oh - Trump was having a tantrum" - WTF!!!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: that time of year

      just pretend its Obama going after Fox News for the same reasons. then it'll be all okay.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    interesting

    when Trump goes after a media outlet, the entire world screams "democracy is ending, the free press is under attack!"

    yet they all seem to forget that under identical circumstances, but in press releases and interviews rather than Twitter, the former US President went after spintacular hit pieces and the network carrying them as well. Fellow travellers echoed this and supported "controls" that the then-President suggested.

    Then it was "a good thing" now it's "the worst thing". From the same *individuals* and organizations who actively supported one and actively attack the other.

    the only actual change is the Target and the Sh*tslinger's party alliance.

  15. druck Silver badge
    Meh

    Forget Trump...

    ...anyone think this merger is going to be good for the consumers?

  16. Bullseyed

    More fake news

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/business/economy/obama-corporate-monopoly.html?mcubz=0

    Trump was opposed to it on monopoly grounds before the election even took place.

    Obama used the same to block Anthem and Cigna, Aetna and Humana, and Sprint & T Mobile.

    Here is the speech from Obama, endorsing Trump's plan to block the merger: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf

  17. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Trollface

    Muh CNN!

    Best commentary on the dumbass attack suffered by CNN actually on RT:

    The Hunt for Reddit User: CNN proves it can do investigative journalism

    RT is quite like El Reg: Between the sponsored content and lines fed by the ministry of goodthink, there is stuff one can agree with.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019