Mr. wOw’s Au Revoir to Oprah

Our beloved columnist may not fully “get” the talk show queen. But he’ll miss her…

Many years ago, a friend of mine sat me down and delivered a long, serious dissertation on the talent (or lack thereof, to be correct) of Mr. wOw’s sentimental favorite iconic movie star, Marilyn Monroe. After pulling Miss M. apart in the most astute manner, my friend put his hand on my shoulder and said, “You are so smart. I just don’t get it. What do you see in her?!”

My reply? “All your points are valid, but she moved me.” My friend pushed me away, threw up his hands and said: “Well, you are just hopeless.”

I was reminded of that conversation as I watched Oprah Winfrey’s final show this week. One hour of the Big O testifying. I thought I was going insane! Blah, blah, blah. (And but of course her final “guest” would be herself. It makes perfect sense no matter how you feel about her.)

I have never indulged in the Oprah Kool Aid. I absolutely do not “get it” when people talk about her amazing powers of sincerity and connection. She has never seemed like a “best friend” to me. Her grandiose sense of entitlement has always amused me, however.

That said, I can’t deny what this woman has accomplished and what she does mean to millions of people. Whether she thinks of herself as God or not (I suspect she does,) she has done good deeds, inspired people to better themselves and forged an unbreakable bond with those who literally worship her. If I live to be 100 I will never be as certain of myself, or as inspiring to others, as Miss Winfrey has been.

I complain a great deal (mostly to myself or to poor B.) about my lot in life. But even I know I bought and paid for that lot, and if I wanted to, I could sell it for a better property. I’m afraid to now, but fear has always ruled my life. Oprah was fearless. Or she appeared that way. Or she used her fear wisely. Oprah moved people; you cannot explain that kind of power and attraction.

And so she is gone. Kind of. We will never (perhaps) hear those fabled five words again: “Did you see Oprah today?”

I’ll never “get” her. I won’t. But I don’t disparage those who do.

After all, I have Marilyn in “The River of No Return” to make me blush, and force me to explain that she got much better later on.

109 comments so far.

  1. avatar Maizie James says:

    *In all fairness, I’ve rarely watched daytime talk shows over the years because I was too busy. It is not just the Oprah show that I disliked. I simply PREFER talk shows of substance; shows that air in the evening after the business of the day. For instance, I’ve watched Charlie Rose since he debuted.

    Yet, I was curious and decided to watch Oprah after reading about her growing success. To my dismay, the few shows I’ve watched [less than ten], I tuned in on programs where the topic was about OPRAH! In fact, the very first Oprah show I saw featured a telephone exchange with Stedman as he explained why he wanted her to loose weight! Obviously, you can understand why I avoided watching for another few years.

    The second Oprah show I saw featured an auction she was having. She invited viewers into her huge wardrobe! Then there were a few shows where she exploited someone. For example, there was a young child suffering from a rare disease, which accelerated their aging. It seemed like a ‘freak show’.

    Again, I just ‘happened’ upon shows which were pure tabloid, or shows specifically about Oprah’s problems/weight. Thus, it’s accurate to admit that I probably missed all the ‘good shows’!

    What it comes down to is choice. Most of us tune in on programming that we enjoy. And, Oprah and all the rest of the daytime host were simply not the type of programming I prefer.

    • avatar Maizie James says:

      Ps: I’ve only seen ‘The View’ once! I couldn’t get beyond the bickering from women who are not experts on the topics they fought about.

      Opinion/gossip is ok … when having lunch with friends. Whereas fact, and expertise is best found on PBS News Hour/Washington Week, or Charlie Rose. Not cable, not the networks. Now, I can handle 60 Minutes, but that’s about it.

  2. avatar Lizzie R. says:

    (Whew…I’ve been trying for 5 hrs to log in…why am I always forgotten?)

    I have a friend who adores Ophah, and I cannot stand her. I have only watched her a few times and felt she was always self serving in all she did. Guess with her you either love her or dislike her.. I know she has done a lot for others, but feel, even then, it’s done for a selfish purpose more than altruistic. I am so mad about  her OWN chanel, as a  Discovery chanel  i enjoyed was sacrificed for hers. Now you just get her, and more her, Dr. Phil. and a few other things Suppose it will continue on in the same mode, perhaps with more of her, if possible. Cannot believe she has really disappeared from network TV, as she will need the exposure soon to satisfy her monstrous ego.

  3. avatar Jessie Bowdoin says:

    Interesting reading Mr. Wow’s post and his replies. I would not like to endure the scrutiny of the rich and famous that goes along with that territory. If I could good things for deserving people incognito like on the “The Millionaire” show decades ago, I would. To have my everything I do or don’t do up for public judgement or opinion, etc., no thank you.
      My observation of the famous Miss O- To each their own. I personally stopped ordering her magazine for that reason someone said earlier. She was always on the cover. Too many ads geared toward the wealthy. Found out that I could get the good articles on line at her website.
     Didn’t like the way she would interrupt her guests. Yes, I watched quite a lot of shows. But I will find something good to do at 4pm M-F.
    Yes, she did good work for encouraging reading. Helping authors. Building schools, helping schools. Building homes, etc. Thousands have gratitude  for her help and her sponsors & viewers.
     Now we all sit here wondering when she’ll start a show on her network that has her as the host. Any bets?

  4. avatar Mr. Wow says:

    A thought for all those who have said even Oprah’s philanthropy was “about herself” and not terribly sincere.


    If somebody puts up their name and face (and most vitally) their money to help educate, to wipe out a disease, to assist the victims of disaster, to lift the quality of life, who cares if they are sincere?    Mr. Wow is a sincere guy.  But I am not rich nor am I especially altruistic. (I’ve had my moments, but few and far between)   Is my “sincerity” worth more than Oprah’s ego?   I’d say the people who have been on the recieving end of Oprah’s generosity would prefer her ego.  (“My child needs an education.  But Oprah–what a faker.  She’s offering to help.  What a phony.  I’ll just chat with sincere Mr. Wow, who can’t do a damn thing for me.”)

    I, too, felt Oprah’s charity was more about making herself feel good, better, the biggest and best.  If that’s what it takes for people with money and power to contribute, bring on the egomaniacs. 

    I am of a similar mindset about politicians–I don’t care what they “really feel.”  I care what they really do.  

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      My observation through the years has been that most “celebrity philanthropy” is about short-term “public relations” rather than long-term solutions. Sorry.

      The exception is Elizabeth Taylor. I am amazed by the number of people who didn’t even know she had her own foundation.

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Baby..

        again, I can only say so what?  A  celeb decides to raise his or her profile by donating millions to a cause  o r sending money to a disaster area?   Where is the downside for the people being helped?

        As long as the money gets to where it should go, I couldn’t care less if the Big Giver really cares. 

        It’s a wonderful thing when those who  indulge in public charity giving are the real deal and truly care.  But, human nature being what it is…I still say it’s better to give and be a phony.  Just don’t take it back!

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        We will disagree. Although I assume we don’t disagree about Elizabeth Taylor.  As for the disaster relief, if I were one of the celebrities that donated to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund, I would be demanding to know where my money went. So far very little of the hundreds of millions of dollars has gone to Haiti. But then, well, there you have the phony part. They really don’t care. They gave the money, got the “good public relations” and really could care less about the people in Haiti. And it’s the same with everything else. They really don’t care beyond the moment of the giving. And so there are no real solutions to problems. Just good public relations for an ego. 

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Baby…Elizabeth was the real deal, in action and in her heart.

  5. avatar Linda Myers says:

    I think what makes Oprah the force she is, is knowing only she can indulge herself on her terms. She has created the Midas touch of providing opportunities to others, rather than carrying people herself. She achieves her dreams and desires and if they happen to create a larger circle of others than so be it. Nobody loses in the process. I do not get any warm fuzzies from Oprah herself though what she has done for others I have felt. The OWN network itself right now is in a holding pattern until she molds it into a new vision, which I am sure is well laid out to be unfolded. She is smart and takes the pieces from those she has met and connected with to create the person she is first and foremost knowing the ripple affect in the process. Regardless of opinion, everyone carries an opinion about her which good or bad strengthens her own energy and means of taking the next step. Has anyone else really matched her ability to influence or stand as they are in choices made, I can’t really think of another presently in her field who does.

  6. avatar Karen Ferguson says:

    I’ve had a soft spot for Mr. Wow ever since I saw how his modesty makes it difficult for him to accept compliments, that he doesn’t seem to know how well he writes. Maybe that’s why he can be gallant regarding Oprah, who seems to know how well she does everything. Way back when she was taking a third-place talk show up to first, and her cheery acknowledgement of her flaws, like her weight and how she looks without makeup, she made viewers feel included in her success. I liked her show when I left to live in Europe and was taken aback when, on a return trip, I tuned in years later to see that her message had changed, from inclusion to exclusion, from inundating viewers with the message that she was best. She didn’t lunch with ladies; she lunched with Legends, and the gift bags with $500,000 earrings at their plates seemed all too Marie-Antoinette for me. I don’t know which irritated me more –the diamonds or the fact she gave them to friends she called the “young’uns,” the kind of uncomfortably derogatory name she gave to Halle Berry and Michelle Obama. Then came the Hermes episode. When I came to Paris, I was horribly intimidated by going to the little exclusive shops, and had to bite my lip when a French “real lady,” a former model, suggested we make a day of it shopping and invited me over to do my makeup, accessorize my suit, and then encourage me to be confident and smiling as she led me into one of the shops. So Oprah shows up fifteen minutes after closing in a jogging suit? If that weren’t a metaphor for entitlement her pal Gail certainly gave one when she pretentiously complained about what a good client Ophrah had been, with “all” the Birkin bag purchases (at $9,000 to $150,000 a pop). I guess the clincher for me was the long-lost-sister incident, when Oprah’s voice broke on-air about how people in her family had betrayed her privacy to the press –on a show for which she’d aired international promo’s touting “her” secret, and dissed her own mother for being embarrassed about the revelation of something she felt shame about, something she’d kept hidden for decades. Not to mention the long-lost-sister herself, who’d asked for nothing but had to endure the Ten Ton Oprah publicity and Oprah’s touted reticence about befriending her until she tested the waters. I know that promotion is the name of the game now, but since I don’t much admire the game I find it hard to admire the winner. Mr. Wow is a much better person than I am, able to voice his respect for Ophrah’s success; I’ll just go off to my corner knowing I’m a curmudgeon. Still, I can’t help but feel sadness that a real “spiritual” achiever –a Mother Teresa or a Gandhi– would never be able attract the thousands that crowded into that good-bye stadium audience in gratitude for Ophrah’s spiritual guidance. But then they were never offering a new Chevy apiece.

  7. avatar crystalclear says:

    Has no one mentioned Oprah’s school in Africa?   What was that all about?   Why didn’t she open that school in America?   That confused me.

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      As other celebrities have discovered, you get more press coverage in the villages of Africa than you do in the slums in America.

  8. avatar omasan says:

    Mr. Wow, thank you for your article. Neither Oprah or Marilyn Monroe need any kind of defense or explanation. They are both wonderful in my opinion. If you don’t like them, don’t watch them. To those of you who hate on others so much–I think you really need to ask yourself why you dislike someone so strongly–chances are that whatever you hate most about them is what you most hate about yourself.

    • avatar crystalclear says:

      Omason, I don’t agree that people actually hate either one in any way.   It’s a personality choice.   Some people we are drawn to and others we are not for various reasons.   For some, Oprah crossed a line and for others they admired and hung on to her every word.   Same for Marilyn Monroe.   In fact, these two women are like comparing apples to oranges and both of them are and were quite different.   So, there you have it….two very different women who were admired or not by many different personalities.

      I wouldn’t say anyone here hates either woman.  

  9. avatar Deborah Key says:

    @Crystal:  Oprah did open a school in the US.    Why do you assume that she did not? 

    • avatar crystalclear says:

      Deborah:    Why would you assume that she did?   LOL! It’s always helpful to do a bit of research before stating that she did open a school in the US.   There’s absolutely no data to support that statement.  

        If Oprah had opened a special school let us say, in Chicago, for underprivileged children TRUST ME there would’ve been huge attention drawn to it….by Oprah herself.    I haven’t read anything about Oprah opening a school in America….only Africa….the one where the molestation took place.

      If you have a link to support that she did open a school in the US I would be interested in reading that information.    I’ll wait for your reply.   Personally, if I had Oprah’s money I would’ve helped children here in the US first….African American children.

      Thanks for responding to my post and I look forward to your reply.   I don’t have a problem with being wrong and then learning from it.

  10. avatar Testarosa says:

    Thanks for the balance, Mr. Wow! Though I have never been an Oprah follower and, quite frankly, (also) never “got” her, I believe she deserves plenty of credit for having broken all manner of barriers — both of the personal and the “hot potato” kind. She also seems to have a big and generous heart (more power to that). At times, however, I have found her gullibility astonishing and even unsettling. Over the years, she has allowed herself to be influenced by an array of unaccredited quacks and C-list celebrities whose vast “research” makes them self-described experts on specific medical/health/well-being issues. Unfortunately, what this woman says, promotes and even mentions in passing is considered “gospel” to those among her more ardent fan base.

    As a mother, I have major issues with Jenny McCarthy being allotted time to rant about her anti-vaccination theories. And, as a two-time breast cancer patient, I deeply resented Suzanne Somers being given a platform from which to air her disdain for conventional oncology courses of treatment. I am still around today because of chemo- and adjuvant-therapies.

    It’s funny. I’ve watched Oprah maybe three or four times in my life. I have no disrespect for her millions of fans. I guess it’s just a case of my having seen all-too-many controversial clips for my liking.

    As a mother, I

    • avatar Baby Snooks says:

      The worst of the legacy of Oprah is not the “gurus” who tell us how to live perfect lives by following their “wisdom” but the “experts” who have misled millions with regard to illness and disease and the treatment of disease. That alone is why I finally “turned her off.”

      Anything for ratings. And for the money that rolled in with those ratings. As the years rolled by, she created the gurus she then promoted. All the while promoting mainly herself.

      As everyone knows, I say what I feel. The Surgeon General should have insisted on a disclaimer in the opening credits of her shows.  “Warning: The information provided by guests on this show are not based on credible science and may prove hazardous to your mental and physical health.”

      I think the worst was Deepak Chopra.  I have not forgotten, or ever will, his stating on Larry King that he knew Michael Jackson was an addict and that doctors were overprescribing for him. He shoujld have reported the matter to the medical board in Sacramento. Which might have saved Michael Jackson’s life in the end. 

      Every time I see a product with the “As Seen on Oprah” I steer clear of it. Just because of the “As Seen on Oprah.” Unfortunately I didn’t do so with Barack Obama.

      • avatar crystalclear says:

        Baby, like you, when I see a product “As Seen On Oprah” I shake my head.  The companies give Oprah the products to promote for which she gets paid whether she likes the product or not and once she gives it the thumbs up sales soar.   That, in itself, isn’t bad, because it is the world of advertising products but somehow it seemed to be all about Oprah’s ego.

        I watched OWN for the first time over the weekend.   I can’t say I liked or disliked it and I might watch it again to get more of a feel for it.   There are many interesting comments here pro and con about Oprah but one thing is for certain….the woman knows how to make money.  She also surrounds herself with talented people i.e. producers, directors, writers, etc. and they are all women.

        I have this soft spot on in my heart when I learn of bad things happening to good people and I believe Oprah falls into that category as a very young woman.   Look where she is today.

        I can’t imagine that there will ever be another Oprah Winfrey.    She’s one of a kind.   Whether or not we like her is meaningless.   Her success speaks volumes.
        Baby Snooks, many of us were duped by Barack Obama.   He keeps making George Bush look better and better for the history books.  

        I’m more than ready to face 2012 to vote Obama out of office.   One term president. 

      • avatar Mr. Wow says:

        Dear Crystal…Obama might be a disappointment (not to me–but I knew better, even tho I voted for him) but he has yet to make GW Bush appear in a more favorable light. 

        Of course, there is still time for that.  I won’t swear it can’t happen.  Anything can happen.

      • avatar crystalclear says:

        Hi Mr. Wow!   Well, now, President Obama so far as mirrored GWB to a “T.”  That was the point I was making but, yes, anything can happen.   Now, hurry and put up another juicy thread for us to chew on.    I like the company you keep on your threads…great posters with excellent comments.   You bring out the best in people even when I don’t agree with them.   You folks are wonderful to hang with.

        Time for Sarah Palin and her “One Nation Bus Tour.”   tee hee 

      • avatar Baby Snooks says:

        Well she was on a bike tour the other day. Told a reporter from FOX news that she loved the smell of motorcycle exhaust. Whatever.  At least we know she doesn’t sniff glue. Just tailpipes.

      • avatar Briana Baran says:

        Carbon monoxide causes brain damage. Good thing Mrs. Palin doesn’t have much to worry about…

    • avatar crystalclear says:

      Testarosa, loved your post! 

      • avatar Testarosa says:

        Am reposting my reply because it has been in moderation “limbo” since about 10:30 this morning. Thanks for that, crystal clear. BTW, your moniker suits you to a tee: you come across as a real straight-shooter (something I like and respect in a person).

        FWIW, my original reply contained a link to a Newsweek article (search words: Oprah Winfrey + Live Your Best Life Ever). It is quite long but, even by reading a few paragraphs, one can get the gist of the authors’ message: heeding health advice doled out on the Oprah Show could make you sick.

    • avatar Mr. Wow says:

      Dear Testarosa…
      I agree!  And I also think Oprah should have apologized for her relentless promoting of diets and workouts and crap that never really worked for her, yet she encouraged millions to spend millions (and valuable  time) following her lead.   Maybe she did, this season?
      I class Jenny McCarthy (well-meaning though she is) in with Suzanne Somers.  And as to the latter–please, you look “younger” because you’ve exploded your entire face with Botox and Restalyne.  And that chest!  Fine–everything is  a personal choice.  Just be honest.  Kind of. 

      • avatar Testarosa says:

        Glad you agree, Mr. Wow. Whatever works for Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers is fine by me (especially in Ms. McCarthy’s case as I am well aware of her son’s autism): it’s their preaching and conversion efforts that wear me down and, ultimately, give me the pip. BTW, your summation of Ms. Somers’ “youthful” look is very well-observed — neither unfair nor overreaching.

        Keep up the great work. From one who ALWAYS looks forward to your posts.

      • avatar Briana Baran says:

        Jenny McCarthy’s son is not autistic, and never was. He has a seizure disorder, and it has nothing to do with his vaccination schedule. She is not well meaning…she conspired with his former doctor to allow the falsification of his medical records to indicate autism spectrum disorder. When this was discovered, the doctor lost his hospital position and his medical license. He know sells his “cure” for autism (which is a manageable condition…through various kinds of therapy….not by any means all pharmaceutical, and highly dependent on the individual…but not “curable”) for thousands and thousands of dollars to the desperate and gullible. No insurance will cover it, or reputable psychological, medical, or neurological specialist recommend it. Also, the critical outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough in areas in which parents are refusing to vaccinate based on the long debunked belief that mercury in vaccinations causes autism (medical research of large populations disproved this in Japan in the 1960’s and ’70’s…and vaccinations don’t contain mercury at all anymore, yet autism diagnoses hold steady or are on the rise) can be largely attributed to all of the millions of people who watched Ms. McCarthy’s pronouncement, and Oprah’s tacit endorsement, on their televisions. Far, far too many people are star-struck enough to believe celebrity experts over medical researchers, their own doctors, and empirical facts.

      • avatar Testarosa says:

        Briana: I am completely gobsmacked by what you have written in reply. I well and truly had no idea. When I singled out Jenny McCarthy, I was trying to inject a bit of balance and fairness into my otherwise pretty withering assessment. Definitely should have done a little homework. I certainly have no reason to doubt you but, if her son is indeed non-autistic, this is all an utterly shameful state of affairs.

        Like you, I worry about the legions of Oprah fans who are choosing not to vaccinate their children because of what Jenny McCarthy has espoused. On a more personal level, I also fret about how many might have opted to refuse chemotherapy (or any of the “miracle” adjuvant therapies available) after watching Suzanne Somers rant against traditional courses of cancer treatment. In my case, it was a no-brainer: when your oncologist says to you “it’s a case of life or death”, you choose life and (temporarily) surrender to those who truly do know better — or even best.

        Thanks again for your post: they say you learn something new every day and, in this instance, I think I’ve had (what Oprah would call) an “aha” moment.

      • avatar Briana Baran says:

        Testarosa, I appreciate your post and your candor. I have a 20 year old son who has autism spectrum disorder. His step-father and I have gone through pure hell convincing my former in-laws that quack cures don’t work, and that there is no one to sue. The vast majority of medical researchers and neurologists now believe that the increase in diagnoses of autism, which is highly variable, and causes actual changes in brain structure that could only occur in utero (hence, not from vaccinations) is some environmental factor affecting chromosomes, particularly in males, whose gametes are much more vulnerable.

        Suzanne Somers not only may have caused incalculable damage with her ridiculous and unfounded outcry against traditional cancer treatments (and I have several much loved people still in my life because of these treatments), but also with her “female” macrobiotic, macro-vitamin, and topical hormone treatments. Two female gynecologists and my therapist (all of whom are proponents of holistic and natural methods that in no way financially benefit them) warned me off of Ms. Somers methodology, because the high vitamin doses can be lethally toxic, and the hormones can cause blistering, severe burns, permanent scarring, and even be fatally toxic for certain women. Way to go Suzanne…and way to go Oprah.

        And Oprah is no role model for over-weight or obese women who suffer from anxiety, depression, or dysmorphia issues. She wears her dysfunctions like a badge of pride, her breakdowns and weight gains as a banner of attention-seeking and self-pity, and her “triumphant” losses as as some sort of victorious endorsements for various useless weight-loss and dieting plans and supplements. I find that truly disgusting.

        As for her school in Africa, I don’t discount it…but the people who most desperately need the eduction in the pit of Hell that is sub-Saharan Africa are the boys. They have to be taught to be conscious, to respect others, that the rest of the civilized world doesn’t accept, condone, or approve of rape, and brutalization, and chattel law, and women as less than human. It’s all well and good to educate a select few girls…but what happens when you send those very few out into the same old culture of brute force and ignorant, rutting, violent, uneducated males? Men are human too, and it will take both sexes in the hell holes of the world to make improvements.

        And yes, I have to wonder why so many celebrities choose vile corners of the world to make small, but extremely splashy charitable statements. Well, no I don’t. People praise an Oprah for her school (molestation be damned), or an Angelina Jolie for her exotic kiddie collection, or Madonna for foreign child purchases…but when Sandra Bullock goes through four years of absolutely normal adoptions procedures, merely asking for an orphaned infant, race, gender and place of origin unimportant, and keeps it private, and then ends up with an orphaned black infant from New Orleans that the agency matched HER with…she’s somehow condemned for buying herself a pet “N” word. Really? Just as an example, on a list of donors to both the Haiti and Japanese disasters, Ms. Bullock was one of the top contributors…but you won’t know this unless you stumble across it by accident. Ms. Jolie made sure the cameras got all of the right angles…so she’s an angel of mercy.

        As Mr. Wow stated, in a sense, it doesn’t matter why the contributions are made, especially when they truly bring aid and relief to those in need (think Bill Gates, who everyone loves to hate, and his quest to bring the ravages of malaria to an end). But sometimes the manner and type of contributions is merely self-agrandizing…and doesn’t truly serve a far-reaching or significant purpose.

      • avatar crystalclear says:

        Briana, great post.   You have a distinct way of making your point.   Love reading your posts!

        I have a problem with Angelina Jolie….always have.   Loved your choice of words above “exotic kiddy collection.”    Nailed it, Briana! 

      • avatar Briana Baran says:

        Jenny McCarthy well-meaning? O, Mr. Wow, she was involved in fraud right from the start. And the only thin was boosting her she was interested in doing was, mmm, boosting her sagging popularity and insuring her place in the limelight. I find using one’s own child to regain “Star Status”, especially by putting him through a rigorous quack cure for a condition he doesn’t have based on documents you know have been falsified absolutely disgusting.

        Now thousands, if not millions of people are at risk from diseases that can blind, cause severe brain damage, and kill. Diseases that were under control. And autism research took a sucker punch to the balls. Nice work, Oprah and Jenny.

  11. avatar crystalclear says:

    Testarose, when I was responding to one of your posts just before clicking  “submit” I noticed I had spelled your name TESTOSTERONEROSA.    Honest to God…I cannot lie LOL!  

    • avatar Testarosa says:

      Crystal Clear, you definitely gave me a laugh-and-a-half with that near-gaffe. And, FWIW, I assure you I am not a testosterone-fuelled Wow-O-Wow “troll”. :-)))

  12. avatar crystalclear says:

    Laughter is soooo good for the soul!   Of course you are not a troll!