What do you say about ugly babies?

28 Jul

My church small group has been going through the Ten Commandments, based on our church’s sermon series.  This week we discussed the ninth Commandment, “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” which is most commonly translated into “don’t tell lies, you lying liar.”

This led into a quite energetic discussion about what to say when someone asks you to agree that their (ugly) baby is cute.  I was actually shocked that some people blew this off as a trivial issue, because to me this is one of those rubber meets the road things.  If you’re going to condemn white lies, then the ugly baby issue is smack dab in the middle of that.  And if you’re going to insist that whatever you speak is not only truthful but INSPIRING and KIND, then the ugly baby issue presents a serious conundrum.

Maybe this is more of an issue to someone like myself, with a strong need for ideological congruence, than for someone who is more of a feelings person.  A feelings person would probably not think it important or necessary to delineate what is and is not appropriate to say when presented with an ugly baby issue.  If the receiver of the reply is content, then all is well, no harm, no foul.  I think a feelings person would feel that the overall INTENT of the words was what was important, not the actual words.  So if a feelings person said, “Oh, she’s adorable,” then that would not be a lie because the person wasn’t intending to deceive, per se, but to speak to the subtext of the actual question, which is that the asker is seeking approval.  On the other hand, an analytical person in the same situation suddenly gets thrust into the horrible pressure cooker of trying to be truthful yet not commit the sin of saying something that will upset the other person.  The thought process goes something like:  “This baby is UGLY, it looks like a giant prune, maybe its face will sort itself out when it becomes a toddler, OH CRAP WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO SAY?  I can’t say, ‘No, I don’t think your baby is cute,’ but I can’t say, ‘Yes, your baby is cute’ because that is a LIE and as a Christian I can’t tell LIES but what compliment can I actually give this potato-shaped poop machine without sounding like an ogre?”  Then you make a rapid judgment call, weighing possible positive outcomes versus possible negative outcomes, and you either mumble, “Yes, very,” or you try to deflect, saying, “You must be very proud,” (this was one of the proffered suggestions in small group) and hope that Mommy doesn’t dig into your subtext.  But then if you’re subtexting to a subtextual question,  aren’t you BOTH being deceptive, therefore liars, and horribly in need of forgiveness?

I have a hard time when Christians issue hard-line edicts about stuff like this, because an analytical person will feel that the edict goes right up to the most absurd scenario.  (Well, unless that person also has an extremely strong practical mind, as well.)  I mean, if you’re going to tell other Christians that anything with even a whiff of not 100% genuine, heartfelt, objective truthfulness delivered in absolute love and kindness, is SIN SIN SIN SIN SIN, then you need to be prepared for some awkward pauses and hurt feelings.  If you’re implying that people are sinning if they answer “fine” to a coworker’s perfunctory “How are you doing?” question, then people need to be prepared to hear things they don’t want to hear.  (This is why I rarely ever ask people how they are doing, and I often don’t answer the question when it is posed to me.  Most of the time, I do not genuinely care how the other person is doing, so I don’t ask.  PERSON:  “How are you doing?”  ME:  “Hello.”  Of course, a feelings person would probably consider this rude.  Actually, a NO LIE EVER person would probably also consider this rude, because it’s not treating the other person with love and kindness, and it is certainly trying to wiggle out of something.)

I think this ties in to why Christians are horrible at comedy.  A lot of comedy (and basically all great drama, for that matter) LIVES in subtext.  But when you have Christians being instructed to say ONLY EXACTLY what they mean, and only do it in the nicest of ways, then most comedy and most drama will fail.  But ironically, most Christians fall into using subtext precisely because of this enjoinder.  They KNOW they can’t say certain things, so they just find ways to talk around it, and because everyone knows that certain words and phrases and voiced thoughts are off-limits, everyone knows what everyone else means.  My devoutly Christian grandmother is an expert at this.  I remember one time when I was at breakfast with her and my mom, and my grandma wanted to trash my cousin’s wife’s outfit that she had worn to a family gathering.  My grandma, as a Christian, obviously could not say, “I thought J looked like whorish white trash.”  So instead, she asked, “What did you think of J’s outfit?”  Which, to any practiced Christian listener, meant “TRASH WHORE!”  But by bringing the subject up the way she did, she had plausible deniability of trashing, PLUS she had the added advantage of letting someone else do the trashing first.

I’m not saying that we should all go super-spergy and forgo any semblance of tact in our pursuit of truth in speech.  I think the best tactic is to try to choose our battles wisely and try to recuse ourselves from conversations where we have nothing to add.

P.S. During this same small group meeting, we got on the subject of Abraham lying to Pharoah about Sarah being his wife, not just his sister.  Group leader asked, “What did Abraham learn from this experience?”  I said, “That his wife was a liar!”  WOW, did that get a shriek of denial from some of the other women in the group.  Their reasoning was that Sarah was under Abraham’s command.  My comment was, “So are you saying that Sarah had no moral agency?  If your husband asks you to lie and you do it, are you also excused because your husband told you to?”  That line of discussion got scuppered VERY quickly.

 

Advertisements

27 Responses to “What do you say about ugly babies?”

  1. Rodney July 28, 2012 at 10:52 pm #

    “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”
    I think that means don’t bear false wtness against your neighbour in a court of law, or the Old Testament equiavalent. It mean don’t commit perjury. I don’t think it is talking about what to say when someone asks if their ugly baby is cute.

  2. Athol Kay July 29, 2012 at 12:27 am #

    Rodney beat me to it. False witness is a legal thing.

    For ugly babies you say, “Oh he looks just like his/her daddy!”

    What Abraham should have learned is that if you actively let another man have sex with your wife, it’s up to the other man as to whether you ever get her back or not. There’s no mention of Sarah complaining about what happened either, and based on Pharoah’s tipping, it seems she was providing the whole GFE for him. Alpha’s always get better sex.

  3. Samson J. July 29, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    What those guys said. And:

    This is why I rarely ever ask people how they are doing, and I often don’t answer the question when it is posed to me. Most of the time, I do not genuinely care how the other person is doing, so I don’t ask

    Holey moley, I had no idea you were such a pseudo-male-Sperg-with-no-social-skills-type literalist Louie! Everyone knows “how are you doing?” is a mere social pleasantry; no one actually thinks you really actually care. (If you’re the type of person who actually does care, people can tell, I promise you.)

    I was actually shocked that some people blew this off as a trivial issue

    *shrug* I would file this one under “things that pop churchianity consistently misunderstands”, along with judge not lest ye be judged (probably highest on the list), turning the other cheek, and love in general. Lying isn’t always lying (read through some Ed Feser for a more detailed treatment). Jesus lied – although many people will argue that this passage means something else, I think that the best analysis is that the text means nothing more than it seems at first glance: Jesus “lied”, because telling untruths isn’t always immoral.

  4. Foster July 29, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    I concur with Rodney and Athol with respect to the original intent of the Ten Commandments, but the literate Christian is not off the hook that easy. Proverbs 12:22 simply says that God hates lying lips, but delights in those who are truthful, while God is a God of Truth, and love “delights in the truth.” Then there is of course the WWII scenario: what if you’re hiding Jews from the Nazis, and they come to your door and ask. (A woman named Corrie ten Boom’s sister actually told them where Corrie was hiding Jews, even though the sister didn’t want to, because of her belief that lying would be a sin. I think it’s obvious this was the wrong choice.)

    To muddy the waters, several biblical figures lied and were praised by God for doing so or are painted favorably: The Hebrew midwives lied to save the Israelite babies Pharaoh wanted to kill. Rahab lied to the officials of Jericho about the spies. Jehu in the book of Judges concealed a weapon after being searched and questioned in order to get past the guards and kill the evil king that was oppressing Israel. Esther concealed her true Jewish identity, etc. The Abraham case your group mentioned is possibly a good counterexample, but I think it’s pretty clear that Abraham was culpable not for lying to Pharaoh, but for allowing his wife, the mother of the promised Isaac, to become the wife of another man just so Abraham could save his skin: defend your woman, you wuss!

    The only way to approach this is to do so recognizing that as Christians we live by the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. As St. Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, [even lying!] but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.”

    In law, there is also the related concept of Equity. This concept applied both in the historical Church and in civil law states that no set of written laws could account for every situation that might arise, and, when the strict carrying out of the law results in an application that clearly perverts the original purpose of the law, then one may justly ignore it.

    But I think there’s something rather unique in the baby-complimenting case, though. If that baby is made in the image of God and you don’t find him beautiful in the most true sense of that word, then you need to look deeper, marvel at his eyes, all the changes that must have come about for him to be able to see out of such complex organs, who once was but a cell, wonder at the fact that Christ became a baby too, that omnipotence descended into something the same as the “ugly” baby. Yeah, it might not seem true that the baby is beautiful to limited human sight, but it is true because of what Christ has done in coming into the world. He has made all humans beautiful by adopting our form, our pains and our ugliness on the cross. Keep saying the baby is beautiful and believing it to be true, and one day your own aesthetic judgment may be the same as God’s.

  5. Lucie July 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Thankfully there’s no commandment against deflecting. My choice in this type of situation every time.

  6. LibertyBelle July 30, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    Like other commenters have said, it’s not really about lying, but about testimony. And not just in court either. Bearing false witness against your neighbor’s character to the girl at the grocery store, etc. falls under this, I think.

    But there is also Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself and Thinking of Others More Highly Than Yourself. There are times that expressing ones “true” thoughts about a baby’s lack of cuteness or a friend’s new hair cut are putting yourself before the other. This is a wisdom issue.

  7. Dalrock July 30, 2012 at 7:31 am #

    The key to the ugly baby delimma is to recognize that the problem is in the question. “Isn’t my baby cute?” is stricly superficial. All babies are a gift from God, and what the parents are really trying to do is share their feeling of joy at being so blessed with this child*. Instead of answering on the superficial level, simply answer (sincerely) on a deeper level. Tell them their child is beautiful, wonderful, or adorable. All of these are true regardless of the “cuteness” of the child in question. Perhaps over the top but may come in handy is magnificent.

  8. Kenneth Leung July 30, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Em… why not tell the truth. I mean it’s not actual kindness to give the mom false ideas of her babies attractiveness.

  9. lemmiwinks July 30, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    I go the Seinfeld route and say the ugly baby is breath taking.

  10. The Continental Op July 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    You can lie by telling the truth. Yes, legalists tell the truth, but it’s deception. Example: the legendary Corrie Ten Boom tells a story where they were hiding a Jew under the table–yes, he was in the cellar, and the table was over him on the floor above. The Germans came looking, and asked where the Jew was. One of the children said, “he’s under the table!” which pedantically was true, but he wasn’t under the table in the way the Germans (and any normal person not in on the trick) understood it. They figured he was just teasing them, and eventually they left figuring he wasn’t there. Oh, they were so proud of themselves for being so crafty with the truth!

  11. Not Anonymous July 31, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    I have a question in this line of thinking. I once had a fellow church member approach me along with her teenage daughter, who had a baby in her arms (her second out of wedlock), and was clearly seeking some congratulations on the newest member of the family. How should a Christian react in such a situation? You don’t want to come off as being full of condemnation but neither do you want to give the impression that this is just wonderful news. What to do?

  12. jz August 1, 2012 at 7:26 am #

    Not Anonymous at 8:51 asks a really tough question. I’m stymied at this and would love to read imput from others.

  13. Foster August 1, 2012 at 7:54 am #

    Regarding Not Anonymous’s question, I say you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

    Going back to St. Paul’s words about “all things being lawful, but not all things profitable,” it seems obvious that the social damage that you would do to your relationship with that person by shaming them with whatever overt or covert means, overwhelmingly outweighs any good you might do by awakening a sense of shame in the person about their lifestyle. More likely they will simply label you a jerk and want nothing more to do with you than actually consider your judgment of their lifestyle. What they hear from the pulpit and read in the Bible and your church’s written statements on faith and morals must be clear enough to educate them about what your church believes. But if you treat them like garbage, then they will never want to find out what makes you and others like you different or wish to imitate you.

    The child is indeed a “member of the family”: yours. Christ has bound us all together into one holy nation and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9).

  14. proclusishere August 2, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    You write a bit like a philosopher. That’s a compliment.

  15. y81 August 4, 2012 at 6:00 am #

    One thing that is clear is that God sees the human heart, and the person who stirs up trouble while maintaining plausible deniability, by saying “What did you think of her outfit?” rather than “Didn’t she look skanky?” may escape human judgment, but not divine. Jesus instructed pretty clearly that this sort of Bill Clinton-style legalism (e.g., swearing by the temple rather than the gold of the temple) doesn’t work with God

  16. brentrailey August 5, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    Haley, Foster makes excellent points. There are countless examples in which people are rewarded for deception in Scripture. Joseph is rewarded for deceiving his father. Rahab hid the spies. And there are many other examples of deception in scripture that is rewarded.

    http://www.garynorth.com/Genesis1.pdf

    Take a look at chapter 28 of that book, it changed my mind on this issue. Sometimes Christians are caught in a matter of the lesser of two evils, and deception is the lesser of that evil.

    It closes that paradox of the white lie. You have the issue of what’s the greatest evil, telling her the baby’s cute, or hurting her feelings. Pick the lesser of the two.

    If Christians were being systematically persecuted by the government, and you had knowledge of the whereabouts of large Christian groups, and you were asked by the government of such whereabouts, the proper thing to do would be to deceive. Giving up your brothers to Imminent persecution, to me, would be a greater moral evil than lying to a bureaucrat whose intent is to kill.

  17. Foster August 5, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    Thanks for endorsing what I said earlier, brentrailey. I totally agree with the way you put the situation as well. Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that rather than Joseph, who at first deceived his brothers about his identity when he was reunited with them in Egypt, but so far as I know, never deceived his father, you may be thinking of Jacob. Jacob stole his father’s birthright from his elder brother, Esau, by pretending to be Esau. Some relevant points can be made whether I’m right about that or not.

    I think that it’s very dangerous to praise Jacob for what he did above or consider him a role model in that situation, because he acted completely for self-serving reasons, and in the context of a legal birthright, impersonating his elder brother, nor does the Bible paint him as an all-around good guy. Jacob is portrayed as a worldly-wise trickster who often does the wrong thing and as a result is always on the run. I think that when Jacob is tricked by Laban into marrying Leah instead of the daughter whom he loves, Rachel, we are intended to detect a certain poetic or divine justice, since it is the same maneuver Jacob performed on his father. God did not favor Jacob because of his shady ways, but in spite of them. (It’s not like Esau was a bouquet of roses either.) Quite the opposite, I think Jacob’s a perfect example of when lying becomes evil. That is, when it stops being about promoting harmony and peace, and starts being about promoting oneself to the detriment of one’s brother and society.

    In Joseph, on the other hand, we can see the opposite fault in Joseph in Gen. 37, when he tells his brothers about the dream in which he was exalted above them. The dream was true and even prophetic, but telling it to them was stupid and the wrong decision, because it destroyed the community between them, making them hate him. Telling the truth without restraint then can be just as bad as, and often worse than, lying.

  18. an observer August 5, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    Answer depends on how much truth is palatable.

    Given mpai applies to churchians, sugar coating is usually required.

    To mangle a metaphor, churchians deluded by feminism subsist on milk. Meat is indigestible until truth sets them free.

    Hmmm…

  19. brentrailey August 6, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Foster, you are right I meant to say Jacob. However there’s a lot more to the story than his the mere deception of Isaac. Jacob was a very savvy negotiator. That’s why I suggested that you read chapter 28 of the book that I linked. Just because he was a savvy negotiator, this doesn’t make him a trickster.

    People forget that before Jacob’s deception of Isaac, Esau had already sold his entire birthright for a mere meal. In that light: Jacob was taking what was rightfully his, what had been sold to him for a very cheap price. No one ever speaks of the fact that both Rebecca and Isaac knew that God had chosen Jacob over Esau.

    That’s why I say, read the chapter in that book.

  20. Foster August 6, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    brentrailey, I am glad that we seem to agree regarding proper behavior to apparently ugly babies. I do not wish to get too far afield of what I perceive to be Haley’s central question, “When, if ever, may a Christian lie?”

    Let me suffice it to say then, for our conversation here, that I think North is too quick to lionize Jacob and demonize Isaac. He does this for one thing by assuming too much about the circumstances that seems dubious in the absence of scriptural witness agreeing with his view. To quote North,

    “He [Isaac] ignored the fact that Esau had sold his birthright. [ We are never informed by the scriptures that he even knew about the bargain to begin with. ] He ignored the fact that God had promised Jacob the position of superiority. [ Again, God revealed that to Rebekah, and we are never told that Rebekah ever told Isaac about the prophecy. ] All that mattered was his own instant gratification. [ North assumes here that the only reason Isaac is giving Esau his blessing is because he likes Esau’s cooking. How about because it is his right as the first-born son? ] In other words, at this point Isaac went to war against God. He rebelled. “ p. 256

    Claiming that Isaac was “at war with God” when we have no scriptural witness suggesting that Isaac’s actions displeased God (although the same is not true of Jacob: read on), much less made “war against” him, is too much of a leap for me. I cannot agree with North’s questionable exegesis here. I freely admit, however, that I am influenced in my judgment by the interpretations of the New American Bible’s editors, among others, regarding Ch. 27, 1-45:

    “What Jacob did in deceiving his father and thereby cheating Esau out of Isaac’s deathbed blessing is condemned as blameworthy, not only by Hosea (Hosea 12:4) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 9:3), but also, indirectly, by the Yahwist narrator of the present story, who makes the reader sympathize with Esau as the innocent victim of a cruel plot, and shows that Jacob and his mother, the instigator of the plot, paid for it by a lifelong separation from each other. The story was told because it was part of the mystery of God’s ways in salvation history–his use of weak, sinful men to achieve his own ultimate purpose.”

    That being said, I do not retract my interpretation of Jacob’s behavior as a negative example of truly wicked lying in my comment above. But honest disagreements over biblical interpretation represent iron sharpening iron, and a high respect for the witness of sacred scripture, so I respect your position also.

  21. mmaier2112 August 7, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    Lucie: “Thankfully there’s no commandment against deflecting. My choice in this type of situation every time.”

    I’ll second that. I’ve gotten very good at this since becoming a Christian.

  22. brentrailey August 7, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    I agree, the point of Haley’s post deals with the question of if a Christian can, and should, deceive under the correct condition.

    I’ll just make this points:

    Did you look up those two verses “condemning” Jacob? Neither one of them condemn the person of Jacob. In fact, it praises the person of Jacob for prevailing against God–using the same terminology as Genesis.

    The reference Jacob’s condemnation (Israel) is to the northern kingdom–clearly this is so because of the reference of Judah right next to it–punishing them for rebellion. The vers in Jeremiah doesn’t even mention Jacob.

    A point you made: ” [ North assumes here that the only reason Isaac is giving Esau his blessing is because he likes Esau’s cooking. How about because it is his right as the first-born son? ]”

    Genesis 25:28: “And Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game.”

    In the very next passage, starting in verse 29, you have Esau being so present-oriented (a sign of impulsiveness and sinfulness) that he sold his birthright for a pot of stew. “Thus Esau despised his birthright.” This indicates he didn’t even want it.

    Genesis 27:3: Isaac to Esau, “Now therefore, please take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field and hunt game for me. And make me savory food, such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die.”

    Isaac picked favorites. He did so for superficial reasons. The Genesis 27 verse clearly made hunting game a precondition for receiving the blessing.

    Esau swore to the fact he sold his birthright. Therefore, it belonged to Jacob.

    In the next chapter, Isaac, in weakness and fear, is willing to pass off his wife to the King Abimelech. That’s real integrity there. There isn’t much in Scripture that lionizes Isaac, other than being the chosen offspring. At least the Scripture says of Jacob, “He struggled with God and prevailed.”

    I am not saying Jacob was a great specimen of ethics. None of them were, but they were all (except Esau) chosen of God in his grace.

    My point is that Jacob, in deceiving Isaac, was taking what was rightfully his. It is not quite as wicked and tricksterish as theologians have made it out to be.

    I will grant that North is going out on a limb by saying that Rebekah told Isaac of God’s prophecy: “The older will serve the younger.” However, Rebekah did know that Jacob was the chosen, and therefore was acting to get Jacob what she understood to be fulfillment of God’s prophecy.

  23. Foster August 7, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Bear with me a moment, and I promise I’ll take this back to the question of “When do you lie?”

    Well, brentrailey, I must admit, you and North are certainly not alone. I ran into a number of commentators who agree with you. This one

    http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/02-20a.htm

    (who also agrees with you that Jacob was in the right) makes the point, however, that the birthright and the blessing were not the same thing. I really hadn’t considered this until I started thinking about how the commentators above referred to it as Isaac’s “deathbed blessing,” rather than “birthright,” but I think it further solidifies Jacob’s guilt.

    It is particularly telling that Jacob himself gave the birthright to Joseph, while he gave the blessing to Judah, informing us that these are two different things. The commentator above explains Jacob’s stealing the blessing away by saying that Jacob had a right to the blessing because of the prophecy given to Rebekah that Esau would ultimately serve Isaac. But if true, the separation of the birthright and the blessing into two different legacies seems to destroy your and North’s justification above with the soup trade of Jacob’s lying to his father, since in that case, the soup trade didn’t entitle him to the blessing as well, but only to the birthright.

    In that case, we are left with Jacob lying to his father because his mother told him to do so, and the following scenarios depending on how much he knew.

    If his mother didn’t tell him about the prophecy, he was consciously defrauding his brother, obeying one parent’s will, but disrespecting the will of the other one: he’s in the wrong.

    If she did, Jacob might well have thought she was lying to him just to get him to go along with it (since she was asking him to lie to her husband, and she loved him better), but did it anyway because he liked her better than his father, or because it was to his advantage: he’s in the wrong.

    If his mother told him, and he believed her and was trying to bring about God’s will (which I think we really need to “go out on a limb” to believe, as you put it), then he was acting in the same manner that Abraham and Sarah were acting when they used Sarah’s maid-servant Hagar to bring about God’s promise of a son to them. They assumed that they had to intervene to bring about God’s will and God punished them with the misery accompanying Ishmael. Jacob is just as clearly in the wrong here for the same kind of hubris, and he should have trusted God to carry through his will, without needing Jacob to bear false witness against his neighbor (I don’t think I’m overstating things to put it in terms of the ten commandments, since it was in the context of a legal matter, the right of the blessing, that Jacob lied). I assume of course he got as far as this paragraph, in which case: he was in the wrong.

    No matter how you cut it, Jacob was in the wrong, and in all of these possible scenarios, his lie is unjustified and perverse.

    As the commentators in my previous post mention, he and his mother were punished for their deception by a lifelong separation. Additionally, because of what he did, Jacob was effectively exiled from his homeland. He had a remarkably similar trick played upon him to the one which you are defending him playing on his father, which resulted in a polygamous marriage, and a predictable horribly contentious family life. I really think we’re supposed to get a “don’t be like this guy” message in those dimensions. You are right, though, that he has good moments too, although the struggling with God episode is also mixed: he disobeys God’s representative who asks him to let him go. Usually folks get messed up when they disobey (or even question) angels, and Jacob had a gammy leg the rest of his life after all. He already had God’s blessing, and God would have been with him had he let go or not, and it may be the only reason the angel didn’t strike him dead for his insolence. On the other hand, Christian tradition has turned this into an analogy for our prayer lives, and our duty to be persistent in our prayer lives, so I can see how you could take that as a positive.

    I realize I’m not responding to several points made in your post above, though I might with more effort if it still seems relevant, but I believe that they may be moot (not to mention pretty far afield of the post topic) when you consider the blessing and birthright as two separate things. Do you still think Jacob was justified in lying to his father, brentrailey?

  24. hallizann December 26, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    About the ugly baby, “aww, what a sweetie!” or just make cooing noises with no words whatsoever

  25. dave May 2, 2013 at 5:14 pm #

    Did someone say ugly baby?

  26. Newyorkdress March 5, 2015 at 2:01 pm #

    Misströsta icke angående lyssnarsiffrorna, tror inte alls att det är relaterat till hur mycket folk gillar podcasten. Om jag utgår ifrån att alla är EXAKT som jag så tror jag att det beror på något så enkelt som att det blev lite sporadiskt med när den skulle komma ett tag. Med andra podcasts så har man ju sin spikade dag och nu liksom tappade jag bort den lite för att den inte kom när den ”skulle”.
    Newyorkdress http://www.lovenewyorkdress.com

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Daily Linkage – July 29, 2012 | The Second Estate - July 29, 2012

    […] What do you say about ugly babies? « Haley’s Halo […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s