IDB

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:29 pm**

phamnotof wrote:1) Whoops? I've offended you enough that you need to 'whoops' me? You'd think I'd have targeted you personally rather than made a very generic comment that was obviously using hyperbole. But yes. I did sense some indignation in people's reaction to her bringing up their sexualities that extends outside of mere criticism of her journalistic skills. Specifically your “I don't understand the world sometimes“ read as somewhat upset with her bringing it up, but I can of course just be mistaken there.

Yes. It did. You're not mistaken. Because of everything I just wrote in my last post, specifically:

2) Speaking of journalism, stating opinions as facts is rather a no-go. The off-handed sexuality comment (it's quite literally one word) serving no purpose in this article is an opinion. I, for one, don't share it. I think it's answering a question a reader might have while reading this specific article about D&P, which makes it worth putting in. That's what you're trained to do as a journalist, trained to serve the reader who's going in with little to no information.

It's more than one word, it's quite literally the first line of the article and serves as the readers starting point with learning about Dan and Phil. Indeterminate sexuality reads as not-straight. Yes, it is my opinion (where did I try to play it off as fact, please) that making a point of mentioning their probable-not-straightness goes against the intent of the article. Actually, scratch that, it just literally adds nothing. She has nothing to say about masculinity with regards to sexuality, there's no intent to engage in that discussion. Sexuality has no part in this article. So I find it quite unnecessary to bring it up as the first thing in describing D&P, especially when they've made it clear they don't want that to be relevant to what they do.

Being un-stereotypical men, expressing themselves and their emotions creatively-- that's a point of the article (where they come into it anyway). 'Let me add my suspicions of their sexualities to start off here for no reason (IMO in case that's somehow not clear)' to me is no better than a tabloid article questioning celebrities' sexualities. What if the Teen Awards included that in their nomination materials? Vlogger Duo of Indeterminate Sexualities Dan and Phil. I mean, it's just info that's out there, why not use it.
Because; IMO it's just on the edge of outing, to which I say: no thank you please.

5) Pioneering expressions of gender and masculinity that exist outside the status quo is a part of the male queer culture. D&P aren't pioneers, but assuming they're not straight, they're a part of that, and that's not stereotyping, that's context. Which, yes, does matter. As does the context of the writer being in her 40s at least and offering a not entirely regular, outside of the phandom POV on D&P, which is bound to shape how she talks about them.

Well that's all lovely but nothing she bothered to touch on in the article. It would have been a great read if she went that deep, but she didn't. You're doing it for her for free.

Anyway I apologise for not sharing your opinion, thank you for schooling me on the intricacies of journalism, and sorry I whoops'ed you.

And disclaimer: I'm not even shitting on the article, the article is fine and the intent is great. That one line alone is my problem because it's not [IMO] used to any productive effect [/IMO].

edit: This has nothing to do with anything, but that Sunday Times author was a man. I don't know why I feel the need to make that correction, but hey.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:56 pm**

On the one hand I want to use all the time and effort I put into passing English 103 and help analyze this article. On the other hand i want to pull a dinof and change the subject and leave the room because opinions are complicated.

What I do think it is important to say is that this is an opinion piece by a women who has a total of 4 articles on this news site, two of which are about this topic. Her other articles are similar, both shoehorning in topics like harambe that have nothing to do with what she is writing about and being loosely written. Not worth fighting with each other over.

You all really take InDepthtm seriously around here lol.

As for my opinion on what she meant rather than what she badly said : I fell in love with their gaming channel because its rare to find guys on youtube who don't feel the need to act overly masculine and make comments about sleeping with every female game character they see. They do give good advice and conduct themselves in a way that I would be proud of my future son or daughter to look up to as a good example of a human being.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:10 pm**

I think what sits strangely about the line in question is that the woman wrote a (well intended, and otherwise reasonably well executed) piece about masculinity, made a fleeting reference to sexuality, and never expanded on discussing how the two link (or more to the point, how they don't).

To her, it was probably a throw-away comment, but to us (with the expansive background knowledge of Deppy that we have - particularly with the general consensus being they're a closeted couple) it hits a nerve, especially so when it was just so blasé and irrelevant to the rest of the article.

I dare say if she'd tried to discuss masculinity in the context of sexuality, we wouldn't have found issue with the comment as it would have had its place within the article. But if she'd ventured into that territory then you really are looking at verging on outing people and we'd have taken issue with her picking apart the sexualities of two men who seemingly have no desire to disclose that information.

Bottom line - if you're not willing to dip your toe into the complex discussions of sexuality vs masculinity, then keep the off-handed remarks about sexuality off the table. Sexuality isn't 'context' or 'background' information. Telling the reader their youtube histories, the fact they're on the radio, they live in London together etc is background information. Sexuality, especially when indeterminate, is much more private and has no place serving as padding to an otherwise well-written article.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:14 pm**

Winston wrote: Why is it just boys discovering sex online? Apparently girls are still stuck behind the shed waiting for the boys to come and show them what they found out on the "INTERNET", because us girls never see anything like that online when were are young. (She needs to look at tumblr, or google fanfiction, because jesus...everyone needs Jesus....)
...
Am i the only one?

No I also got this vibe. Particularly from:

That this porn floods our boys' brains with dopamine hits as powerful and addictive as cocaine.

Which seems to implicitly assume that only boys watch porn/ get their 'first sexual feeling' watching porn/ are 'addicted' to porn 'as if it's cocaine'. Girls are left out of this discussion - because everyone knows girls don't enjoy sex as much as boys and would never look at pornography let alone be addicted to it.

But other stuff doesn't make sense like:

Yet I am excited about the fathers of today. Fathers who cuddle and kiss their boys on the footy field, who nurture, adore and proudly care for their kids.

Props for implicit assumption that boys and fathers will be hanging out on the footy field in an article supposedly advocating new attitudes towards gender.

Parents are told at school meetings that the fault lies with a new, very dangerous world. The bedroom. We are told that into that bedroom comes 24-hour, non-stop access to gambling, gaming and hardcore pornography.

What have gambling and gaming got to do with problematic male attitudes towards women? It's not explained.

What happens? When do some boys decide they have a right to objectify and ridicule, belittle and degrade young women?

Assumption of an artificial turning point - when the 'good' boy becomes the 'bad' boy, rather than a slow and gradual process of learning in a society geared around sexist assumptions like that football is for boys and fathers and not girls and mothers.

It is astounding that some gentle, sweet, kind, loving young boys are growing up to become vile pack animals who prey on girls online.

She draws this artificial dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' boys, presumably with Dan and Phil falling into the former category. The purpose of Dan and Phil in the article seems to be an illustration of what 'good boys on the internet' might look like. I agree with her though, her heart's in the right place, but perhaps clumsy execution?

Young men like the YouTubers I saw the other night, who are not creepy and predatory online but just silly and kind — two blokes who are confident enough in their masculinity to paint on cat's whiskers, dance in sparkly gear and entertain roomfuls of young girls and old mothers with their sweet, dorky divineness.

I agree that the link between their 'indeterminate sexuality' and wearing 'sparkly gear' needed to be connected to some broader explanation of how this is part of growing acceptance of different sexualities other than the artificial macho male hyper heterosexuality, and growing acceptance of boys displaying characteristics traditionally reserved for females such as being 'loving, caring, kind, sweet, gentle etc'. (Characteristics which encourage empathy with women, and so may lead to more positive attitudes towards women should more males feel able to display them).
^ how not to sentence or sense make by bluewho™

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:19 pm**

Honesly I thought it was a nice article.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:28 pm**

SquishPhan wrote:Honesly I thought it was a nice article.

+1

I must agree with Artdefines06: it may seem like we expected an exhaustive investigation on masculinity roles and sexuality regarding Dan and Phil...for a concise, nice, well-written article created by a low-profile editor (no offense intended, of course). It sincerely gives the impression that the sexuality mention was meant to be an offhanded comment, with no "second meanings" nor depreciative connotations whatsoever, but well

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:36 pm**

I thought the sexuality comment was a throwaway one she made not realizing that so many people would be picking her words apart. Her writing is not great and definitely not an award winning journalistic article Mums share over Facebook. If I was grading it I would give it a D+ she makes a good point but brings up topics that aren't developed upon and she gets lost half way through. I've read better essays written by a 14 year old.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:44 pm**

fancybum wrote:
phamnotof wrote:1) Whoops? I've offended you enough that you need to 'whoops' me? You'd think I'd have targeted you personally rather than made a very generic comment that was obviously using hyperbole. But yes. I did sense some indignation in people's reaction to her bringing up their sexualities that extends outside of mere criticism of her journalistic skills. Specifically your “I don't understand the world sometimes“ read as somewhat upset with her bringing it up, but I can of course just be mistaken there.
Yes. It did. You're not mistaken. Because of everything I just wrote in my last post, specifically:
Leaving the lines about being comfortable with their masculinity while doing things outside of the narrow definition she mentioned would have sufficed. But the very first line needs to tell the reader that their sexualities are indeterminate, something that wouldn't be a consideration were they straight. 'Get a load of these straight guys off YouTube sharing their feelings and wearing shiny jackets'. Would that really have been included were they unequivocally straight? Maybe if she had actually touched on sexuality at all at any other point in the article. But she didn't. So why include that descriptor right at the beginning? To first set them apart.

Is that not what she intended? To have the reader question their sexualities based on their non-stereotypical actions and interests as men? Because without actually spelling it out for the reader, that's all I'm inferring from it. And that does nothing at all to combat toxic stereotypes or help anybody.

2) Speaking of journalism, stating opinions as facts is rather a no-go. The off-handed sexuality comment (it's quite literally one word) serving no purpose in this article is an opinion. I, for one, don't share it. I think it's answering a question a reader might have while reading this specific article about D&P, which makes it worth putting in. That's what you're trained to do as a journalist, trained to serve the reader who's going in with little to no information.
It's more than one word, it's quite literally the first line of the article and serves as the readers starting point with learning about Dan and Phil. Indeterminate sexuality reads as not-straight. Yes, it is my opinion (where did I try to play it off as fact, please) that making a point of mentioning their probable-not-straightness goes against the intent of the article. Actually, scratch that, it just literally adds nothing. She has nothing to say about masculinity with regards to sexuality, there's no intent to engage in that discussion. Sexuality has no part in this article. So I find it quite unnecessary to bring it up as the first thing in describing D&P, especially when they've made it clear they don't want that to be relevant to what they do.

Being un-stereotypical men, expressing themselves and their emotions creatively-- that's a point of the article (where they come into it anyway). 'Let me add my suspicions of their sexualities to start off here for no reason (IMO in case that's somehow not clear)' to me is no better than a tabloid article questioning celebrities' sexualities. What if the Teen Awards included that in their nomination materials? Vlogger Duo of Indeterminate Sexualities Dan and Phil. I mean, it's just info that's out there, why not use it.
Because; IMO it's just on the edge of outing, to which I say: no thank you please.

5) Pioneering expressions of gender and masculinity that exist outside the status quo is a part of the male queer culture. D&P aren't pioneers, but assuming they're not straight, they're a part of that, and that's not stereotyping, that's context. Which, yes, does matter. As does the context of the writer being in her 40s at least and offering a not entirely regular, outside of the phandom POV on D&P, which is bound to shape how she talks about them.
Well that's all lovely but nothing she bothered to touch on in the article. It would have been a great read if she went that deep, but she didn't. You're doing it for her for free.

Anyway I apologise for not sharing your opinion, thank you for schooling me on the intricacies of journalism, and sorry I whoops'ed you.

And disclaimer: I'm not even shitting on the article, the article is fine and the intent is great. That one line alone is my problem because it's not [IMO] used to any productive effect [/IMO].

edit: This has nothing to do with anything, but that Sunday Times author was a man. I don't know why I feel the need to make that correction, but hey.

Indeterminate reads as indeterminate to me. As in, we do not have the information. Thats the information she's sharing about them, much like the fact they're English – both of which made it into the first line. If it implies anything, it's a certain level of flamboyance, and yes, I'd say that definitely adds to the article, plus it creates a very real picture of the selves they portray during the show she'd just seen them put on. I find it both relevant and not a big deal to mention, but to get back to what I was first commenting on, I don't mind that other people find it irrelevant, what struck me as odd was the sense of indignation I got, and that I get from a part of the phandom every time their sexualities are brought up.

And I do think that sexualities are a valid part of this conversation. They're a valid part of conversation about online culture, masculinity and watching the world learn better. She does not owe D&P caring about whether they want it to be relevant. She's not doing their PR, she's not employed by them, she just watched their show and related it to a subject on her mind at that time. I tend to think that fans expecting the level of investment and information they have to be automatic to all journalists as a big part of why classical journalism and fandoms often clash rather nastily, and I personally think that's a shame, too.

As far as outing goes, I think stating someone's sexuality's unknown isn't really outing, and your tone almost makes me feel like the article is called Probs Gay Youtubers Put On A Probs Gay Show, Also Toxic Masculinity I Guess. But that goes back to me thinking that there does not need to be a protective bubble around conversations that include their sexualities. And I was never offended you didn't agree with me, in case that wasn't clear, what I was put off by was you responding to my post with an angry edge when I just said what I thought without directing you in any way. As far as me mentioning context, I do feel like not explicitly spelling out something makes it nonexistent in the text, but that just goes to show that even articles belong to their readers, too.

Alas, I'm not interested in any she-said-she said and pointing fingers, and I'm also just sensing you might be a bit more upset than the severity of this situation asks for, so I'm going to respectfully walk away now.

(And, by the way, as far as sharing input on the 'intricacies of journalism' – as someone who's both a journalist and works with a lot of other journalists, plus has done some writing about fandom culture, I thought some the little I had to share might be useful to someone. It was certainly never my intention to school anybody.)

(If you wanna talk to me about this some more, I'm fine hashing it out in private, but I feel like it's becoming rather irrelevant to the main thread on IDB, and so a bit unproductive on this platform.)

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:12 am**

phamnotof wrote: Alas, I'm not interested in any she-said-she said and pointing fingers, and I'm also just sensing you might be a bit more upset than the severity of this situation asks for, so I'm going to respectfully walk away now..

Wat. This is literally just the way I type and talk. But yes let's quit while we're behind anyway. I feel like we're just having different conversations at each other.

Listen, all I want is to know what country D&P are currently in and some detailed updates on their health. And when the radio is happening. Is it truly so much to ask of the world?

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:17 am**

Off-Topic:

blueapple_x wrote:So something funny happened at a tatinof show:
Someone recorded an ISG bit where Dan basically threw a bit of shade at people who copy Phil without crediting lol.
http://www.instagram.com/p/BJphlqoDYj5/
or
http://mangamaniacalex.tumblr.com/post/ ... m-the-part

I feel like this could be Dan just being dramatic for comic effect to work up the audience. On the other hand, do you guys think it could have been calculated when he mentioned in the liveshow that Phil was underappreciated and uncredited. Do you think he mentioned it in the liveshow with the intention of getting the phandom to spam the comments sections to force other YouTubers to credit Phil?

(my posts no longer make sense, thanks nightshifts)

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:54 am**

Look at what Dan's just liked on twitter:

I wasn't aware of this person, so for those equally as clueless as me:

http://www.people.com/people/package/ar ... 84,00.html

Took me a good couple of scrolls on their twitter to 'get' the sense of humour but I think I've got it now - who knew I was over the hill at 25 eh

I liked that Dan liked this. Fash.Un.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:20 am**

Lurktacularr wrote:Look at what Dan's just liked on twitter:

I wasn't aware of this person, so for those equally as clueless as me:

http://www.people.com/people/package/ar ... 84,00.html

Took me a good couple of scrolls on their twitter to 'get' the sense of humour but I think I've got it now - who knew I was over the hill at 25 eh

I liked that Dan liked this. Fash.Un.

Dan posted on Twitter a link to an article about Joanne the Scammer with an appreciative comment, a little while back (too lazy to find and link the tweet sorry; but here's the article link: http://www.thefader.com/2016/08/09/joan ... -interview )
I think Dan's drawn to, and admires considerably, people who are very open with 'who they are': loud, 'free' and fairly provocative people (maybe explains his Kanye stanning somewhat?) I find this really interesting about him tbh.
I guess he's also in admiration/encouragement of the way Joanne has risen so incredibly and rapidly in social media fame: being herself whilst also this massive online media personality...surely resonates with Dan, right?
(Disclaimer: I don't know a lot about Joanne; I just remembered the article Dan linked, and now here I am extolling some opinions

It's a pretty good read though, if anyone's interested and hasn't read it. Oh, and I wasn't hanging around here when Dan first tweeted it so I don't know how much coverage the article received on this forum last time. Sorry if I'm just rehashing a topic!)

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:31 am**

fancybum wrote: Is that not what she intended? To have the reader question their sexualities based on their non-stereotypical actions and interests as men? Because without actually spelling it out for the reader, that's all I'm inferring from it. And that does nothing at all to combat toxic stereotypes or help anybody.

I feel like this is sorta off-topic now(?) so under the cut in case anyone's tired of this topic lmao

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:59 am**

koalaselfie wrote:
Dan posted on Twitter a link to an article about Joanne the Scammer with an appreciative comment, a little while back (too lazy to find and link the tweet sorry; but here's the article link: http://www.thefader.com/2016/08/09/joan ... -interview )
I think Dan's drawn to, and admires considerably, people who are very open with 'who they are': loud, 'free' and fairly provocative people (maybe explains his Kanye stanning somewhat?) I find this really interesting about him tbh.
I guess he's also in admiration/encouragement of the way Joanne has risen so incredibly and rapidly in social media fame: being herself whilst also this massive online media personality...surely resonates with Dan, right?
(Disclaimer: I don't know a lot about Joanne; I just remembered the article Dan linked, and now here I am extolling some opinions It's a pretty good read though, if anyone's interested and hasn't read it. Oh, and I wasn't hanging around here when Dan first tweeted it so I don't know how much coverage the article received on this forum last time. Sorry if I'm just rehashing a topic!)

That was a great article! It may seem invasive but I love reading in depth looks at peoples lives (as long as they were ok with it and allowed the interview). It is important to see the world through other people's eyes. Maybe in 10 years we can get an article like this about DnP

(I could see Dan writing a book or something down the line where he talks about how difficult and wonderful everything was)

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:19 am**

Artdefines06 wrote:
koalaselfie wrote:
Dan posted on Twitter a link to an article about Joanne the Scammer with an appreciative comment, a little while back (too lazy to find and link the tweet sorry; but here's the article link: http://www.thefader.com/2016/08/09/joan ... -interview )
I think Dan's drawn to, and admires considerably, people who are very open with 'who they are': loud, 'free' and fairly provocative people (maybe explains his Kanye stanning somewhat?) I find this really interesting about him tbh.
I guess he's also in admiration/encouragement of the way Joanne has risen so incredibly and rapidly in social media fame: being herself whilst also this massive online media personality...surely resonates with Dan, right?
(Disclaimer: I don't know a lot about Joanne; I just remembered the article Dan linked, and now here I am extolling some opinions It's a pretty good read though, if anyone's interested and hasn't read it. Oh, and I wasn't hanging around here when Dan first tweeted it so I don't know how much coverage the article received on this forum last time. Sorry if I'm just rehashing a topic!)
That was a great article! It may seem invasive but I love reading in depth looks at peoples lives (as long as they were ok with it and allowed the interview). It is important to see the world through other people's eyes. Maybe in 10 years we can get an article like this about DnP (I could see Dan writing a book or something down the line where he talks about how difficult and wonderful everything was)

We talked very little about it but the next day Dan posted the natural hair selfie and broke the internet so that was the end of that discussion.

I really liked the article and kept Dan and Phil in the back of my mind while reading it. The whole double life thing, straddling the line between real life and online life (I almost said the P word), what you share and what you don't, and all the benefits and pitfalls that come along with that. I was happy to see that Dan had replied it was a great article because it was -- eye-opening, a stark shot of reality, and a little sad to be honest. So many quotes of it are little glimpses into the reality of that whole life of being famous online and just how far it can go. “I have to be funny at all times. If I say something not funny, the one thing — they don’t give me a second chance. I’m cancelled.”

Original tweet:

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:00 am**

The whole double life thing, straddling the line between real life and online life (I almost said the P word), what you share and what you don't, and all the benefits and pitfalls that come along with that.

hmmm

“I have to be funny at all times. If I say something not funny, the one thing — they don’t give me a second chance. I’m cancelled.”

Do you think Dan maybe feels like that sometimes? That could be why he relates to this character so much. Like not that he would be "cancelled" or anything, but that his online popularity might fade over time if he doesn't keep up a certain image? Hes been joking a lot lately about desperately needing us to keep watching, and him being "so close to being forgotten". I wonder if he finds it tiring after all these years, espiecally if he has the "double life" thing going on...

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:22 am**

Maybe they are still travelling...? But no one has spotted them anywhere so I feel like they're most likely at home

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:26 am**

Keep covering up sick/PJ week 2.0 boys.

EVERY. DAMN. DAY. FOR. SEVEN. YEARS...

LS tonight then maybe? We'll see.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:30 am**

Definitely acting like they just got home, but if they flew the same route/airline as going to Australia, they either arrived in London 5 hours ago (or before then), or in a couple of hours time in which case he definitely wouldn't be tweeting.
So I kinda think Ickle is right and they're home having a lazy few days.. quite right too though, the jet lag coming back from Australia is pretty brutal

Edit: potential video tonight though!

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:32 am**

They are "traveling"

He's on an Answering Fest, too:

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:36 am**

" STERN GLANCE"

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:40 am**

after a weekend of no contact, he comes back with a #relatable tweet…! :gg:

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:06 am**

Does anyone else think that the recent timeline of photos is actually a plausible timeline for their trip home?

As in they went back to Sydney for some final sightseeing, then flew to Hong Kong for a night, and have just flown/arrived home?

(Also excited for the prospect of a new video- really needed for the middle of the week

)

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:22 am**

Amelie wrote:Does anyone else think that the recent timeline of photos is actually a plausible timeline for their trip home?

As in they went back to Sydney for some final sightseeing, then flew to Hong Kong for a night, and have just flown/arrived home?

(Also excited for the prospect of a new video- really needed for the middle of the week )

Possibly, but the tweets would probs still be delayed to avoid stalkers. I do think it makes sense that they would drop into Sydney again, because they did six east coast shows in five consecutive days and would not have had much time leftover for sightseeing (unlike in Perth and Adelaide).

I, too, eagerly await a new video.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:27 am**

bluebox-away wrote: Edit: potential video tonight though!

Sad that we aren't getting a live show, but I honestly didn't expect one. So I'm more than happy with getting another gaming vid. They have been on a roll with that channel lately and I love it.

IDB

Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.

Re: Dan & Phil Part 23: Let's just retract the fist.