developing story, NEW YORK TIMES is on this now.
NEW YOK - Pfizer finds itself in a fancy pickle of a funny situation with a heart patient who has lots of patience but still wonders why the PR department at Pfizer does not respnd to his clarion calls for clarification of the pill popping issues here......
A news story in the making, front page NEW YORK TIMES:
by Natlie DeAngelo
New York Times Medical Reporter
NEW YORK -- Danny Bloom had a massive heart attack late last year and now he's having another heart attack -- minor this time! -- over some fuzzy instructions of the heart medicine he's been taking to keep his ticker ticking.
It all comes down to this: Pfizer, maker and seller of Lipitor, says on its website and in full page ads in national magazines that patients should not break their tablets in half to take half dosages, even when told it is okay to do so by their cardiologists.
Bloom, a stent in his stented heart, wants an answer. Pfizer refuses to tell him anything in black or white and merely stonewalls the stonefaced former stoner, now 61.
DEVELOPING.....
Friday, April 23, 2010
Pfizer pillwalling pilltaker who just wants to know if it's kosher to break Lipitor pills in half or not, yet Pfizer PR department remains silent as they try to pillwall the patient, who is after all a Pfizer customer. I guess Pfizer does not care about the people they are supposed to be serving....even Bruce Roth the inventor of Lipitor must be turning over in his grave.....it's a sad day when the US medical pharm community starts pillwalling hapless pilltakers.....oi
Pfizer finds itself in a fancy pickle of a funny situation with a heart patient who has lots of patience but still wonders why the PR department at Pfizer does not respnd to his clarion calls for clarification of the pill popping issues here......
A news story in the making, front page NEW YORK TIMES:
by Natlie DeAngelo
New York Times Medical Reporter
NEW YORK -- Danny Bloom had a massive heart attack late last year and now he's having another heart attack -- minor this time! -- over some fuzzy instructions of the heart medicine he's been taking to keep his ticker ticking.
It all comes down to this: Pfizer, maker and seller of Lipitor, says on its website and in full page ads in national magazines that patients should not break their tablets in half to take half dosages, even when told it is okay to do so by their cardiologists.
Bloom, a stent in his stented heart, wants an answer. Pfizer refuses to tell him anything in black or white and merely stonewalls the stonefaced former stoner, now 61.
DEVELOPING.....
by Natlie DeAngelo
New York Times Medical Reporter
NEW YORK -- Danny Bloom had a massive heart attack late last year and now he's having another heart attack -- minor this time! -- over some fuzzy instructions of the heart medicine he's been taking to keep his ticker ticking.
It all comes down to this: Pfizer, maker and seller of Lipitor, says on its website and in full page ads in national magazines that patients should not break their tablets in half to take half dosages, even when told it is okay to do so by their cardiologists.
Bloom, a stent in his stented heart, wants an answer. Pfizer refuses to tell him anything in black or white and merely stonewalls the stonefaced former stoner, now 61.
DEVELOPING.....
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
We are asking the Lipitor medical drug firm to confirm why or why not patients should not BREAK Lipitor tablets before taking when most doctors around the world do not follow this advice or rule, there is a disconnect here between the website, the fullpage ads in ATLANTIC magazine, the PR dept's stonewalling of my email questions and the actual truth of all this. Sally, we await your kind reply. SMILE
Knowing as much as you can about the medicine you take is essential. Below you will find answers to questions about dosing and how to take LIPITOR. Simply click on the question you want to ask to reveal the answer.
Q: How should I take LIPITOR?
A: LIPITOR should be taken by mouth exactly as prescribed by your doctor. Don’t break LIPITOR tablets before taking.
BUT.....my doctor told me it is okay to break the tablet in half now, and take half per day, and he even gave me a pill cutter supplied to him by the drug salesman, so what's going on here. my doc said he never heard of this rule or advice and he has no idea why this would be. So i am asking Lipitor PR department to tell me and so far they are stonewalling me for 5 days and soon the New York Times will turn this into a good medical detective story. I say this as a heart patient taking Lipitor, successfully i might add and very greatful to be alive, but hey, where does truth lie?
"Beatty, Sally"
show details Apr 18 (4 days ago)
All
I am looping in Neena Moorjani for background on this reporter and will suggest that the EU comms team can drop off this email chain unless someone objects
Thanks
http://www.lipitor.com/patients/dosingQuestions.aspx
http://www.lipitor.com
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Danny Bloom's new book VISIONS OF POLAR CITIES is one part fire-and-brimstone warning about what we've done to our planet and how we must accept, as we implement solutions, that going back to an earlier time and a healthier world is out of our reach, and one part a suggestion of one type of solution we should look toward in a scaled-down world, such as polar cities for survivors of global warming 500 years from now. Bloom's writing is deft, sharp, and convincing, and only a true climate denier could find much fault with what he says. Personally I felt the "let's take this very seriously" warning part of the book -- roughly the first half -- came off much better than the solution half (maybe it's simply easier to wake people up to the danger than it is to lead them out of it and speak of polar cities, God forbid). While the early part of the book felt very universal in tone, in the polar cities solution' half Bloom (1949-2032) waxes extremely local (as he predicts we will all have to in this country in this century). His vision of polar cities is a start, I believe, but might present too narrow a focus for some; which is a little bit of a disappointment, because the "wake up and smell the planet being overcooked" rhetoric is top notch, masterful, and insightful. Anyone interested in climate change (and that should be all of us, since we are almost all affected) should read this book.
Danny Bloom's new book VISIONS OF POLAR CITIES is one part fire-and-brimstone warning about what we've done to our planet and how we must accept, as we implement solutions, that going back to an earlier time and a healthier world is in of our reach, and one part a suggestion of one type of solution -- POLAR CITIES -- we should look toward in a scaled-down world, such as polar cities for survivors of global warming 500 years from now.
Bloom's writing is deft, sharp, and convincing, and only a true climate denier like Marc Morano or Rush Limbo could find much fault with what he says.
Personally, I felt the "let's take this very seriously" warning part of the book -- roughly the first half -- came off much better than the solution half (maybe it's simply easier to wake people up to the danger than it is to lead them out of it and speak of polar cities, God forbid).
While the early part of the book felt very universal in tone, in the polar cities solution' half Bloom (1949-2032) waxes extremely visionary(as he predicts polar cites to be real in 2500 AD).
His vision of polar cities is a start, I believe, but might present too narrow a focus for some; which is a little bit of a disappointment, because the "wake up and smell the planet being overcooked" rhetoric is top notch, masterful, and insightful. Anyone interested in climate change (and that should be all of us, since we are almost all affected) should read this book. The time to prepare for polar cities life is NOW.
Bloom's writing is deft, sharp, and convincing, and only a true climate denier like Marc Morano or Rush Limbo could find much fault with what he says.
Personally, I felt the "let's take this very seriously" warning part of the book -- roughly the first half -- came off much better than the solution half (maybe it's simply easier to wake people up to the danger than it is to lead them out of it and speak of polar cities, God forbid).
While the early part of the book felt very universal in tone, in the polar cities solution' half Bloom (1949-2032) waxes extremely visionary(as he predicts polar cites to be real in 2500 AD).
His vision of polar cities is a start, I believe, but might present too narrow a focus for some; which is a little bit of a disappointment, because the "wake up and smell the planet being overcooked" rhetoric is top notch, masterful, and insightful. Anyone interested in climate change (and that should be all of us, since we are almost all affected) should read this book. The time to prepare for polar cities life is NOW.
Jed Lipinski tells all here in interview with Bill McKibben on new book: EAARTH
"Eaarth": Earth is over
A climate pioneer declares our planet Earth -- with its rising humidity and
hot oceans -- dead. Polar cities might be needed in year 2500 for survivors of climate chaos sure to come. Read news below and weep. And then start preparing, spiritually, for what's coming down the road, circa 500 years from now. But today? ENJOY! LIFE IS WONDER FULL!
Jed Lipinski tells all here (via Saloon)
According to Bill McKibben, the respected environmentalist and
author of the pioneering "End of Nature," the planet Earth, as we know
it, is already dead. Over a million square miles of the Arctic ice cap
have melted, the oceans have risen and warmed, and the tropics have
expanded 2 degrees north and south. Global warming has caused such
pervasive and irreversible changes, he argues, that we now live on a
new planet with a new set of environmental and climatic realities —
and, as such, it deserves a new name: Goodbye, Earth. Hello, "Eaarth."
McKibben’s hair-raising new book, "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough
New Planet," is a scrupulous and impassioned account of the severely
compromised globe on which we now live. He lays out the myriad ways in
which climate change has remade our world, but he also goes much
further, chronicling its current and future human toll. He explains
how droughts in Australia helped precipitate the 2008 food crisis and
put 40 million people at risk of hunger, and how the rapidly melting
glaciers of the Andes and Himalayas may soon threaten the water supply
of billions. Our only hope of survival, McKibben suggests, is a
reversion to small-scale, local ways of life. "We simply can’t live on
the new earth as if it were the old earth," he writes. "We’ve
foreclosed that option."
I spoke with McKibben over the phone about the meaning of
"Eaarth," our grim future, and what oh so smart Tommy Friedman got wrong about
global warming.
What is "Eaarth"?
The meaning behind the title is that we really have created a new
planet. Not entirely new. It looks more or less like the one we were
born into; the same physical laws operate it. But it’s substantially
different. There’s 5 percent more moisture in the atmosphere than
there was 50 years ago, much less ice at the top of the Earth, et
cetera. Calling it "Eaarth," an admittedly weird word, is a way of
calling people’s attention to the fact that the changes that have
already happened are large enough that if you were visiting our planet
in a spaceship, this place would look really different from the
outside than it did just decades ago.
What’s the biggest observable difference?
The most visible change is what’s happening to ice around the world.
But probably the most important is what’s happening to liquid water.
Warm air holds a lot more water vapor than cold, so you get a lot more
evaporation in dry areas, and hence more drought. Even easier to
measure, and more troubling, is the fact that what goes up must come
down, and what’s coming down are these intense precipitation events.
In the book, I describe the rainfalls in my small town in Vermont —
record floods that cut us off from the rest of the world. But that’s
happening around the world almost every day now. The 100-year storm
comes three times a decade in a lot of places. Stuff like that is
sobering, not only because it demonstrates how out of balance things
are, but also because the consequences of a world run amuck are not to
be taken lightly.
What consequences are we talking about?
India, for example, is constructing this massive wall to protect it
from Bangladesh. Not because it represents a military threat, but
because there’s 150 or 160 million people there who are increasingly
squeezed by a rising ocean. As best we can tell, the failure of the
monsoon across Africa is climatically related, and that’s clearly
played a big role in what’s been happening in the wars in Sudan and
Somalia. It’s not that there’s an out-and-out war about climate
change; it’s that all the stresses that already plague the planet get
harder and harder to deal with. If you’re already short of water, say,
now you’re shorter.
Forty-four percent of Americans still don’t believe global warming is
manmade. What’s the best way to convince them?
Most accounts terrifically underplay what’s actually going on already.
But in my life as an organizer, we’ve been very successful without
trying to scare people. Last fall, my organization 350.org organized
5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries, what CNN called
"the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history."
And people were organizing around a pretty obscure scientific data
point, a parts-per-million concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The
lesson we took is that people are capable of understanding the
science. It’s not harder than understanding that if your cholesterol
gets too high, you’re going to have a heart attack. If the doctor says
your cholesterol is too high, your first instinct isn’t to demand a
rundown of how the lipid system works. You say, "OK, what do we do?"
At Copenhagen, we managed to get 117 nations to sign on to the
350-parts-per-million target, which NASA believes to be the safe
percentage. They were the wrong 117 nations, of course. But in 18
months, with little money, we’ve had some real effects.
Then why was Copenhagen such a failure?
Simple: The countries that are most powerful and most addicted to
fossil fuel aren’t ready to come to terms with it. You can’t really
have an AA meeting while everyone’s still in denial. In each of the
last three years, Exxon Mobil made more than any company in the
history of money. That may give them enough political power to keep
the U.S. in denial for years to come.
Thomas Friedman and others recommend a technologically advanced “green
growth” project — big windmills throughout the Midwest, solar arrays
in the Arizona desert, hybrid cars — to kick our addiction to fossil
fuel. Won’t that work?
We eventually run into limits to further growth on the planet. All the
things Tom Friedman would like to do are good things. They just cost
an immense amount of money and an immense amount of resources. We can
do some of them. We’d be very smart to think less about grand,
continent-spanning schemes, and wise to think more about localized and
somewhat humble versions of these same things. Nuclear power plants,
for example, are off-the-charts expensive, because they’re highly
centralized and dangerous. They’re the engineering example of too big
to fail. By contrast, if the solar panel on my roof fails, I have to
fix it, but it doesn’t destroy the electric grid, or release dangerous
solar particles into the atmosphere.
Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic advisor, said that "putting
limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error."
Is he wrong?
He’s wrong, but for an interesting reason. Economists, and many of us
to some extent, have come to believe that the economy is more real
than the physical world. Think about the incredible regard we have for
the economy. "It’s healing," we say. "It’s going through a rough
patch." We talk about it like it’s our aging mother. Whereas with the
Earth, we say, "Oh well, it’s going through its natural cycles, don’t
worry." Which is slightly crazy, because clearly the economy is a
subset of the natural world, not the other way around. We lavish
intense worry and affection and brainpower on the economy, but not so
much on the environment. Summers is the perfect exemplar of that
attitude: an incredibly smart guy whose context is so narrow it ends
up making him very dumb indeed.
So what’s the best way to proceed?
First we need to reach an agreement capping our carbon emissions, and
then help finance the developing world to skip the fossil fuel step
and develop in different ways. Places like South Africa and Bangladesh
haven’t yet gone through the development cycle that makes them rich,
and they’re being told, "That’s not on offer anymore." At the moment,
solar panels are more expensive than coal and will be for a while.
Still, we’re going to have to provide these countries with a better
alternative, and the resources to follow it, if we want to act in a
way that could be described as moral.
As for the nuts-and-bolts engineering, over the long run, I’d
recommend a combination of conservation; harnessing wind and sun, from
both distant and nearby sources; and lifestyle changes. There's no
good reason the Jersey Turnpike should be crowded with cars, not in a
dense area easily served by better transit. In the transition, we'll
be using a lot of natural gas to make electricity, would be my guess.
In the book you use Vermont, where you live, as an example of an
environmentally forward-thinking state.
Vermont hasn’t gotten everything right. Its energy system isn’t very
good. But it’s been ahead of the rest of the nation in experimenting
with local food, for example, which is the easiest commodity to get
back under control. Vermont is also important because of its political
history (it declared its independence from New York in 1777 and was
its own republic before becoming a state), and its ongoing campaigns
against federal subsidies for big agriculture. Its attitude of self-
determination is a reminder that small-scale activities — things like
town meetings, farmers’ markets, composting — can work quite well.
But lately, in the U.S. as a whole, local and regional action has
reached more than a level of experimentation. The number of farms
across the country is growing for the first time in a century and a
quarter, with 300,000 new farms this decade. The one business that
boomed in the last two years was seeds — Burpee Seeds was up 40
percent or something. There’s an awful lot of land in American suburbs
currently devoted to growing grass, often with lavish infusions of
fertilizer and chemicals. Turn some of that energy and resources
toward growing vegetables, and you’re getting somewhere.
A climate pioneer declares our planet Earth -- with its rising humidity and
hot oceans -- dead. Polar cities might be needed in year 2500 for survivors of climate chaos sure to come. Read news below and weep. And then start preparing, spiritually, for what's coming down the road, circa 500 years from now. But today? ENJOY! LIFE IS WONDER FULL!
Jed Lipinski tells all here (via Saloon)
According to Bill McKibben, the respected environmentalist and
author of the pioneering "End of Nature," the planet Earth, as we know
it, is already dead. Over a million square miles of the Arctic ice cap
have melted, the oceans have risen and warmed, and the tropics have
expanded 2 degrees north and south. Global warming has caused such
pervasive and irreversible changes, he argues, that we now live on a
new planet with a new set of environmental and climatic realities —
and, as such, it deserves a new name: Goodbye, Earth. Hello, "Eaarth."
McKibben’s hair-raising new book, "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough
New Planet," is a scrupulous and impassioned account of the severely
compromised globe on which we now live. He lays out the myriad ways in
which climate change has remade our world, but he also goes much
further, chronicling its current and future human toll. He explains
how droughts in Australia helped precipitate the 2008 food crisis and
put 40 million people at risk of hunger, and how the rapidly melting
glaciers of the Andes and Himalayas may soon threaten the water supply
of billions. Our only hope of survival, McKibben suggests, is a
reversion to small-scale, local ways of life. "We simply can’t live on
the new earth as if it were the old earth," he writes. "We’ve
foreclosed that option."
I spoke with McKibben over the phone about the meaning of
"Eaarth," our grim future, and what oh so smart Tommy Friedman got wrong about
global warming.
What is "Eaarth"?
The meaning behind the title is that we really have created a new
planet. Not entirely new. It looks more or less like the one we were
born into; the same physical laws operate it. But it’s substantially
different. There’s 5 percent more moisture in the atmosphere than
there was 50 years ago, much less ice at the top of the Earth, et
cetera. Calling it "Eaarth," an admittedly weird word, is a way of
calling people’s attention to the fact that the changes that have
already happened are large enough that if you were visiting our planet
in a spaceship, this place would look really different from the
outside than it did just decades ago.
What’s the biggest observable difference?
The most visible change is what’s happening to ice around the world.
But probably the most important is what’s happening to liquid water.
Warm air holds a lot more water vapor than cold, so you get a lot more
evaporation in dry areas, and hence more drought. Even easier to
measure, and more troubling, is the fact that what goes up must come
down, and what’s coming down are these intense precipitation events.
In the book, I describe the rainfalls in my small town in Vermont —
record floods that cut us off from the rest of the world. But that’s
happening around the world almost every day now. The 100-year storm
comes three times a decade in a lot of places. Stuff like that is
sobering, not only because it demonstrates how out of balance things
are, but also because the consequences of a world run amuck are not to
be taken lightly.
What consequences are we talking about?
India, for example, is constructing this massive wall to protect it
from Bangladesh. Not because it represents a military threat, but
because there’s 150 or 160 million people there who are increasingly
squeezed by a rising ocean. As best we can tell, the failure of the
monsoon across Africa is climatically related, and that’s clearly
played a big role in what’s been happening in the wars in Sudan and
Somalia. It’s not that there’s an out-and-out war about climate
change; it’s that all the stresses that already plague the planet get
harder and harder to deal with. If you’re already short of water, say,
now you’re shorter.
Forty-four percent of Americans still don’t believe global warming is
manmade. What’s the best way to convince them?
Most accounts terrifically underplay what’s actually going on already.
But in my life as an organizer, we’ve been very successful without
trying to scare people. Last fall, my organization 350.org organized
5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries, what CNN called
"the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history."
And people were organizing around a pretty obscure scientific data
point, a parts-per-million concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The
lesson we took is that people are capable of understanding the
science. It’s not harder than understanding that if your cholesterol
gets too high, you’re going to have a heart attack. If the doctor says
your cholesterol is too high, your first instinct isn’t to demand a
rundown of how the lipid system works. You say, "OK, what do we do?"
At Copenhagen, we managed to get 117 nations to sign on to the
350-parts-per-million target, which NASA believes to be the safe
percentage. They were the wrong 117 nations, of course. But in 18
months, with little money, we’ve had some real effects.
Then why was Copenhagen such a failure?
Simple: The countries that are most powerful and most addicted to
fossil fuel aren’t ready to come to terms with it. You can’t really
have an AA meeting while everyone’s still in denial. In each of the
last three years, Exxon Mobil made more than any company in the
history of money. That may give them enough political power to keep
the U.S. in denial for years to come.
Thomas Friedman and others recommend a technologically advanced “green
growth” project — big windmills throughout the Midwest, solar arrays
in the Arizona desert, hybrid cars — to kick our addiction to fossil
fuel. Won’t that work?
We eventually run into limits to further growth on the planet. All the
things Tom Friedman would like to do are good things. They just cost
an immense amount of money and an immense amount of resources. We can
do some of them. We’d be very smart to think less about grand,
continent-spanning schemes, and wise to think more about localized and
somewhat humble versions of these same things. Nuclear power plants,
for example, are off-the-charts expensive, because they’re highly
centralized and dangerous. They’re the engineering example of too big
to fail. By contrast, if the solar panel on my roof fails, I have to
fix it, but it doesn’t destroy the electric grid, or release dangerous
solar particles into the atmosphere.
Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic advisor, said that "putting
limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error."
Is he wrong?
He’s wrong, but for an interesting reason. Economists, and many of us
to some extent, have come to believe that the economy is more real
than the physical world. Think about the incredible regard we have for
the economy. "It’s healing," we say. "It’s going through a rough
patch." We talk about it like it’s our aging mother. Whereas with the
Earth, we say, "Oh well, it’s going through its natural cycles, don’t
worry." Which is slightly crazy, because clearly the economy is a
subset of the natural world, not the other way around. We lavish
intense worry and affection and brainpower on the economy, but not so
much on the environment. Summers is the perfect exemplar of that
attitude: an incredibly smart guy whose context is so narrow it ends
up making him very dumb indeed.
So what’s the best way to proceed?
First we need to reach an agreement capping our carbon emissions, and
then help finance the developing world to skip the fossil fuel step
and develop in different ways. Places like South Africa and Bangladesh
haven’t yet gone through the development cycle that makes them rich,
and they’re being told, "That’s not on offer anymore." At the moment,
solar panels are more expensive than coal and will be for a while.
Still, we’re going to have to provide these countries with a better
alternative, and the resources to follow it, if we want to act in a
way that could be described as moral.
As for the nuts-and-bolts engineering, over the long run, I’d
recommend a combination of conservation; harnessing wind and sun, from
both distant and nearby sources; and lifestyle changes. There's no
good reason the Jersey Turnpike should be crowded with cars, not in a
dense area easily served by better transit. In the transition, we'll
be using a lot of natural gas to make electricity, would be my guess.
In the book you use Vermont, where you live, as an example of an
environmentally forward-thinking state.
Vermont hasn’t gotten everything right. Its energy system isn’t very
good. But it’s been ahead of the rest of the nation in experimenting
with local food, for example, which is the easiest commodity to get
back under control. Vermont is also important because of its political
history (it declared its independence from New York in 1777 and was
its own republic before becoming a state), and its ongoing campaigns
against federal subsidies for big agriculture. Its attitude of self-
determination is a reminder that small-scale activities — things like
town meetings, farmers’ markets, composting — can work quite well.
But lately, in the U.S. as a whole, local and regional action has
reached more than a level of experimentation. The number of farms
across the country is growing for the first time in a century and a
quarter, with 300,000 new farms this decade. The one business that
boomed in the last two years was seeds — Burpee Seeds was up 40
percent or something. There’s an awful lot of land in American suburbs
currently devoted to growing grass, often with lavish infusions of
fertilizer and chemicals. Turn some of that energy and resources
toward growing vegetables, and you’re getting somewhere.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Urban Dictionary accepted "eback" as a new word for ebooks. Think paperback, now think ''eback''.
Urban Dictionary accepted "eback" as a new word for ebooks. Think paperback, now think eback.
(n.) -- an e-book composed in or converted to a digital format for display on a computer screen or handheld device; first there were hardbacks and paperbacks, now there are ebacks
"I just ordered Stephen King's latest novel in digital format. For me, an eback is just as a good as a paperback book, even better, because I can store it for use anytime anywhere and read it off a variety of screens."
(n.) -- an e-book composed in or converted to a digital format for display on a computer screen or handheld device; first there were hardbacks and paperbacks, now there are ebacks
"I just ordered Stephen King's latest novel in digital format. For me, an eback is just as a good as a paperback book, even better, because I can store it for use anytime anywhere and read it off a variety of screens."
Wasserstiefel (''Water boots'') - photo by Roman Signer (1938 - 2009)
Artist statement
Signer is a visual artist who works in sculpture,
photography, and video. Signer’s ‘action
sculptures’ involve setting up, carrying out,
and recording ‘experiments’ or events that
bear aesthetic results. His work has been
shown at numerous galleries and museums
in Europe, North America and Asia over the
last 30 years.
“For Water Boots I filled two black boots with
water and put a small amount of explosive in
them. This is what the water looked like when
I fired them electrically. Before starting, I said
to my brother-in-law who was with me:
‘Stand in front of it and take a picture when it
explodes.’ He had neither a tripod nor a
motorised camera. He just stood there, pressed
the release, and came up with a masterpiece.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)