ABOUT TEST PATTERN

Don't touch that dial: Test Pattern tunes into television, movie, music and pop culture links, as well as gossip and idle chat from around the Web.

Every week, msnbc.com entertainment producers Gael Fashingbauer Cooper, Denise Hazlick, Paige Newman, Kurt Schlosser and Anna Chan weigh in on topics ranging from TV commercials to movie hype to the latest celebrity blunder. We're not ashamed to admit our love for bad TV or reveal what's on our iPods, and invite you to join the conversation via your comments.



Brinkley my dear, I don't give a damn

Posted: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:15 AM by Kurt Schlosser
Filed Under:

Just when I thought my "Vacation" from the 80s might be permanently over, back came Christie Brinkley this week. The Girl in the Ferrari, as IMDb.com lists her for that 1983 movie, zoomed onto the gossip pages and cable TV with her lurid, public Long Island divorce trial. Aren't you glad?

I guess the saving grace is that the proceedings against soon-to-be-ex-husband Peter Cook ended fairly quickly thanks to a settlement between the two parties Thursday. Brinkley gets the kids and the knowledge that a certain segment of the public that paid attention now knows Cook was her fourth husband. And they know that the decision to go public with the (normally) private and (likely) devastating business of dismantling a marriage was her idea. And that same tuned-in public now knows that Cook cheated on his supermodel wife with a teenager he met at a toy store. And he spent a good deal of money every month on Internet pornography. He gets $2.1 million in the settlement.

I don't feel like I'm better off for knowing any of the information I learned from this entire public display. Marriages end in crummy ways -- knew that. People look at porn online and spend lots of money doing so -- knew that. I guess what I didn't know is that a once famous Sports Illustrated swimsuit model was in a lousy relationship with a jerk. Was it worth it for me to know that, Christie? Your kids are 10 and 13. Did their friends need to know everything? 

A court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr. Stephen Herman, testified that Brinkley needs to examine her taste in men and that Cook is a narcissist with a bottomless ego. There's your one-line takeaway from this week's "Vacation" from reality to celebrityland.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I'm thinking she wanted all HIS dirty laundry aired out - BEFORE reaching settlement. Just for a big ol' smack in the face to what he did to her. I mean - he's married to CHRISTY BRINKLEY!! Anything else is trading DOWN.

AJ Dayton, OH (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 2:52 PM)

Hey, luckyman--

You are indeed a lucky man if there is a woman in your life tolerant enough to listen to your cave-dweller spew.  Whether Brinkley was 'putting out' or not isn't the question and certainly isn't grounds for his pursuing a childlike girlfriend.  Cook has been described as a narcissist extraordinaire, in which case NO woman will be 'enough' for him once he decides he's entitled to something fresh.

Oh puh-leez / PacNW (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 2:56 PM)

She was smart to make it public. It stopped Peter Cook in his tracks. The guy is a diagnosed narcissist and a first class creep. If this had of stayed behind closed doors his ego and sense of entitlement would have kept the fight going too long, the damage to the kids would have been huge. Brinkley swallowed her pride and read the signs rightly: make it public, expose him and his ego will force him to stop the mess, not out of the right thing (for his wife or for his kids) but only fr his reputation.

She was brave, she's obviously no dummy. And 4 marriages does not reflect on her necessarily: people change, fame and money can be tough on ones sense of self and some guys pretend to be something they are not (Peter Cook).  The fact that she's still close to her ex's says that she's okay.

Lady actually earned my respect in the whole debacle.

Elizabeth, Vancouver, BC. (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 2:58 PM)

Openness and honesty is a good thing, and all divorces should be open. The children are hurt by secrecy. Christie has given Peter the opportunity to redeem himself. He can't con himself or anyone else and maybe he'll rise to become a better person. Its the closed files that keeps the behavior repeating.

April S., NY, NY (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:01 PM)

Marge from Washington, sorry but Christie was still married to Billy Joel when she was in that helicopter crash with her eventual 3rd husband. It occurred in March of 1994, Billy Joel and Brinkley divorced in August of 1994 and she married that Taubman guy she was in the helicopter crash with in December of 1994.

Cherie (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:13 PM)

Firstly, with four failed marriages to her name I think it is fair to say Christie makes poor choices when it comes to men. That said...Peter Cook's conduct was reprehensible and frankly he sounds quite loathsome. Secondly, her children are much better off having the actual facts of the case aired in an appropriate setting ie. a divorce court. It is quite disingenuous to suggest that they. their friends, their friends parents and the world at large would have been blissfully unaware of any of this but for Christie's insistence on the matter being heard publically. The lurid speculation and conjecture has been out there for two years. In light of that wanting to put the factual information on the record was entirely appropriate. Finally, hello...Christie has every right to be livid, but if she was really out for blood she would have done Oprah.

Edwina, Adelaide, Australia (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:15 PM)

As a paralegal, I understand her bringing this case to trial.  Parties (and attorneys) usually try endlessly to reach an agreement when there are children involved.  However, based on the reports I've read, it seems as though Ms. Brinkley tried endlessly to settle out of court for the sake of the kids and her main issue seemed to be having full custody of them while Mr. Cook's main issue seemed to be about money.  If, after the psychologists testimony and that of other witnesses, it became clear that in continuing with the trial, Mr. Cook would probably walk away with less than he received, I would imagine that he was advised to settle.  Unfortunately, when one party refuses to be reasonable, the other party has to draw a line and stand firm if he/she is truly interested in the best interests of the children.  I don't fault Ms. Brinkley at all and wish more parents were willing to subject themselves to this much scrutiny in order to insure the health, safety and well-being of their children.

Suzanne (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:18 PM)

In all of the press conferences, Christie did anyone see any REAL TEARS? All I saw was a hateful woman fake-breaking for the cameras and glad to FINALLY have an excuse to get back in the public eye. Sounds like Christie is desperate for a come-back. If all Christie wanted was a settlement, she should have sat down with the attorneys when they were begging her to meet and discuss a settlement. She didn't want to settle until she's had her 15 minutes of camera time. Nothing that came out in court was new news, it happened two years ago. That was plenty of time to settle, but if she had settled, she wouldn't have had any tv time. A doggone shame, when you're washed up, you're just washed up!
Christie needs to look in the mirror and humble herself for all of the married/men in committed relationships she bedded before she puts on that martyr act. If you've had four husbands and STILL can't get it right, the problem is not the men, it's Christie!

pamela, huntsville, alabama (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:20 PM)

I agree with Amy Longins....
The news of Peter Cook's affair was made public TWO  YEARS AGO, not this week by Christie Brinkley.  Cook was the one who dismantled his family life and sullied it in the news, not Christie Brinkley.  She went to trial with him this week because HE tried to break the pre-nup agreement -- he was NOT interested in custody of their children.  It was all about getting more money out of her.   She had to fight him, fire with fire.   HE dirtied the laundry, HE made it public (two years ago), HE ruined his family life with Christie and the children.  

EvaMaria MEmphis TN (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:20 PM)

To L. Butler, you're wrong--what she did was PRECISELY FOR her kids.  Divorce trials are normally public, but Cook's lawyer asked them to be closed.  Obviously he would want them closed because he knew the sordid details of his life would be made public.  Christie's lawyers asked that it REMAIN open as it normally would be, because she and her lawyers KNEW Peter would end up settling and she would have a much better chance of getting what she wanted--FULL CUSTODY of her children.  It's called strategy--and good lawyers.  Everyone acts like the children don't already KNOW what their father did!  Anyway, I am sure they were skirted away to alocation far from the media where could hear details of the trial.  Besides it only lasted a few days.  So, in conclusion, Christie argued for an open courtroom to give her a better chance of winning full custody of her children, so, she in fact did this precisely FOR the children.  Anyway, there is such a thing as facing "punishment" for your bad deeds, and Peter got exactly that.  For him to say he got what he wanted all along was pitiful--he wanted $2 million dollars, and only visitation for his children? You see what was important to him.  The boy, Jack, was adopted by him, the girl Sailor, his natural daughter.  I believe in shielding children from DETAILS, but not from making their father take responsibility for what he did by them KNOWING he did a bad thing.  That's how people LEARN!

Janie Cooper (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:23 PM)

did it ever occur to you people that maybe brinkley was taking things public to put pressure on her ex to settle with her and simply abide by the prenupt that he was trying to wriggle out of?  he may still do so since there is probably still dirty laundry to be aired.  there was really no other way for her to pressure him, since it's probably already a given that she's going to get custody of the children.  you all may think she's a bad mother, but she's simply preserving her wealth, wealth that she most likely intends to pass on to her children.  would you rather it ends up in the hands of her super sleazy ex?

Casual Observer (who happens to be an attorney) (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:29 PM)

I was too married to a narcissist...the exact same story only I don't have millions....Christy had to do what she had to do...the kids will understand in a few years when they recognize their father's self centered destructive behavior...Christy did the kids a favor by limiting the every day contact but unfortunately he will never change...All he wanted was her money and her things...Go Christy for not backing down under pressure.

Tina, Maryland (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:31 PM)

Surprised that Christie has not been labeled narcissistic, too!  

Karen Robertson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:35 PM)

A little bit of history for those of you confused by facts...  

"Brinkley and Joel announced their intention to divorce in 1994 after nine years of marriage, ending a fairytale union that many felt was one for the long haul. Thankfully the dissolution of the marriage was an amicable one, and the couple remained friendly while still raising a daughter together. Finding a new love that same year, Brinkley became engaged to real-estate developer Richard Taubman after surviving a helicopter crash together in Colorado. The couple went back to the site of the crash nine months later to tie the knot."

TN Woman Memphis TN (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 3:47 PM)

I'd rather hear about Christie Brinkley than those little no talent, poor little rich girl type articles about Paris Hilton and the likes of her. There is a public "over 40" out there that would like to hear real NEWS for a change and not "tabloid journalism" about the little sleazes that Hollywood and the Music Industry are promoting now. I wish Christie the best and with she could have hung that jerk out to dry, but over two million is not bad to just cut her losses and MOVE ON.

Monica Bell (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:01 PM)

She's been married 4times, I don't know who's the bigger loser!!  ALL not one but, ALL of her husbands cheated on her.  I was glad it was made public, becasue it showed how much tarnish this so-called golden girl has on her

Cheryl, CT (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:02 PM)

I can't believe the people that blast Christie! Cook is a prime example of a perverted jerk. That same jerk wanted SHARED CUSTODY and lots of $$$ so he can blow more on porn and young girls. Thank God she is done with this jerk. SHE IS A CLASS A ACT TO ME _ ALWAYS HAS BEEN. For those of you that don't know any better: We all have public divorces-go check out the court records-there are dozens of strangers with their own lawsuits pending sitting in the courtroom when we get divorced! Wake up!

TN Woman Memphis TN (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:02 PM)

I met Christie briefly when she was a spokes-model for Nu Skin. Out of make-up she was somewhat above average but what really struck me was her very bland personality. She was a 10 in front of the camera and a 4 out of it. Unfortunately most guys see the looks and don't care about personality until several months later. Women who get a steady stream of attention based on looks sometimes don't develop well rounded personalities. (I know it's a generality but I dated enough models and pretty women in LA to have an opinion)

Both these persons are a good reason why a psych evaluation should be a prerequisite for an issuance of a marriage license; and heaven help any children they have.

Joe, Kalispell, Montana (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:13 PM)

Cheryl....Why would 'married 4 times'make her a big loser? 'ALL husbands cheated on her'? Really? Where did you see that? How would YOU know? 'The public trial showed how much tarnish this golden girl has on her?' YOU HAVE GOTTA BE KIDDING! I don't see how she has 'tarnished'-it seems to me she has SHINED during this ordeal-always a lady. Her greatest mistake was the perverted loser of a husband.  Go GIRL!!!

TN Woman Memphis TN (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:19 PM)

they are both in the wrong; granted Peter was more in the wrong than CB.  Hey, guys, if you want to cheat, get out of your current situation first--then cheat til your hearts content; but dont try to have it both ways.  Peter got what he deserved, and CB is free to go on with her life, and to try and help her kids deal with the situation.  Don't blame her for his underhandedness, she did what she thought was best for the situation.  If you were in that mess, you wold probably take the same route.

Dina in AR (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:21 PM)

I can't figure out is WHY Christie Brinkley feels the public has a right to know other than the fact that this guy is a creep. Frankly, other than the tabloids, the geneal public doesn't care. We have our own worries with gas/food prices on the rise and homes going into foreclosure.

Not to put the blame squarely on Cook but we didn't have to live with either one of them so we can't say "poor Christie" or "poor Peter". She obviously has problems picking decent men or who knows, these men might have been decent before they married her. He sounds like a real piece of work and any woman that would want to get next to him should really run the opposite way.

Robin, Las Vegas NV (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:23 PM)

While Peter Cook is clearly not a great guy, he is just a guy. Most look at porn at some time or another (Cook clearly more than most if he spent $3k/month) and some have had affairs.

When discussing the custody of kids, if a father is a good father, unless the kids are somehow exposed to the above transgressions, they should not matter. She said repeatedly that he was a good father, so split custody.

I was originally in Christy Brinkley's corner, but that she made all this public really soured me on her. I really question her as a mother now really. She seems like just another b***h who would do anything to get full custody.

There should be laws that say if both parents want custody, it is automatically 50/50 unless one is shown to be an alchoholic, drug addict, or abuser.

Kevin C, Nashua, NH (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 4:25 PM)

I am not sure if my last post took because I got an error message when I hit "submit", so I am going to try again.

First, I can in no way agree with Christy for even opposing the request that this remain behind closed courtroom doors, even if the judge may have eventually ruled that way anyway. That is indeed good lawyering, but in no way remotely good for the kids to be, even potentially, exposed to this. It showed incredibly poor judgment on her part and lowered my opinion of her immensely.

Second, for all those who mention the prenup and money, by all accounts I have seen, all of that had been previously settled and the hearing was solely about custody. You can be a cad, but still love your children and have a right to be in their lives 50 percent of the time.

Third, porn and affairs make you a...hmm, a guy? While it does say something about you, virtually every guy has looked at porn (ok, maybe not $3k a month worth), and many have had affairs, as have many women. Unless you parade it in front of your kids, it should have nothing to do with custody if you are a good parent.

There should be a law that automatically gives 50/50 custody and only if alcohol abuse, drug addiction, or pedophilia (and like it or not, 18-yo Bianchi was legal, so she cannot be counted) can be proven does that split change. This would FINALLY take the court bias that women automatically get custody out of it.

I fought that bias personally and to this day it disgusts me. I was 10 times the parent of my ex wife, sole breadwinner, and home with my daughter full time from day one; yet I had to spend $25,000 to get almost a 50/50 split, but I still pay child support and she, a woman who can barely take care of herself, was named as having primary physical custody. I never cheated, and she left with zero warning.

For all the women I have heard about who were very civil during their divorce, I have heard plenty of stories that make me think that women are just evil.

Kevin, Nashua, NH (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 5:29 PM)

Thank you Christie for being so brave and poised.  You were right to do what you did.  He was wrong.  Period.

Ojai Gal (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 5:39 PM)

Why does anyone care about any of this?  These people are only important to themselves.  What he did does not matter to anyone but her and yet we had to see their lawyers hashing it out every morning on the Today show for a week.  Ugh.  

KB, Las Vegas (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 5:54 PM)

Christie ALWAYS put her kids first and made this public in her fight for custody of her kids.  She needed to do what she needed to do.

Cook is worthless and to risk it all for someone like like Bianchi ????  He must be missing a few marbles !

LK, New York (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 6:00 PM)

Let's see one person thinks CB went public because she was angry and hurt, another thinks it's because CB wanted sympathy, you're both wrong..she did it for the publicity. Remember she's in her 50's now and not on the cover of Vogue on a  regular basis, ok well she is on at 3am hawking the total gym but can we really count that?
Yes, divorce can make you angry and certainly hurt but she was not thinking of her children, she was thinking of Christy. And don't go putting this all on Peter either....they're both to blame as far as I'm concerned.
And yes CB did cheat on Billy Joel.

Barbara, Murfreesboro, TN (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 6:15 PM)

The most disturbing thing I heard in this trial was that Cook regularly humiliated and verbally abused the oldest daughter, going so far as to push her head in a bucket of water. Brinkley "felt horrible about it" but apparently took no action to protect the daughter or stop that abusive behavior. The daughter spoke as though she was resigned to the behavior by her stepfather and her own mother's lack of action. It wasn't until Brinkley herself was humiliated that she felt it necessary to take action and call attention to this man's behavior. Something is very wrong with that.

Marianne, Greenville, SC (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 6:22 PM)

I'm sick and tired of this much ado about Christie Brinlkley's supermodel status. She's obviously a loser in the relationship dept. I think Peter Cook is very attractive and has handled himself well thru this whole mess. Christie appears fake to me. That perpetual smile is just a shield. For Christ sake! this woman has been thru four marriages.

Ras Forb (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 7:02 PM)

I think Christie  was fighting for her kids, she knew what he was & is. A mother will do anything to prtect her children, &  she  didnt want to take a chance of  Cook getting them & then subjecting them to his ugly ways. And  there  was more information   coming from private detectives.  I think he was scared what might come out in the open. So being what he is, he folded --knowing he'd lost  

Pat Elizabethtown,Il (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 7:11 PM)

IMHO Christie is a very poor judge of character......and whether anyone in America wants to admit it or not - CHARACTER COUNTS.  I don't know which is more embarassing to a child - finding out their "daddy" likes young girls / internet porn OR that their mommy was married four (going on 5?) times!!! GREAT EXAMPLE (both of them)

CMM, Sykesville, Maryland (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 9:11 PM)

Divorce is a matter of public record. There was no way she could have kept this quiet.

Ann (Sent Friday, July 11, 2008 10:32 PM)

Obviously, most of these bloggers don't know that Christie had no choice in making the trial public or private; that's the judge's decision. As for the comment I read about, "if you don't pet your dog, he won't stay under the porch" - give me a break. Men like variety, even if they have the best and most beautiful sexpot at home, and that's just a regular guy..not the sicko that Christie was married to. He exceled at the art of being a sex perv. The only thing CB is guilty of is poor taste in men or falling for their charming BS when they were chasing her for marriage. I feel bad for the children too, but if someone was trying to take custody of my children, I would stop at nothing to prevent that. Hold your head high, Christie, you had no choice but to do what you did.  

logical_person (Sent Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:08 AM)

Peter Cook is a pig. He is just sorry he got caught. I am glad Christie smeared his name all over. .he deserved it, he is accountable for his actions. Go Christie!!

sherry turner honolulu hawaii (Sent Saturday, July 12, 2008 3:11 AM)

I wonder how many of the people slaming Christie Brinkley would have been happy to pay her lousy husband a few million in cash and property just to keep peace and quiet. He needs to get a job, be a man and now support himself. I say "way to go Christy"!

Jane, Charlotte NC (Sent Saturday, July 12, 2008 8:18 AM)

Christie Brinkley seems to want to play the part of public martyr and wronged woman. And I really hated her "supermodel" smile whenever she was walking to and from the courtroom -- does anyone else see a reality show in her future?? Seeing as she has been married four times, she must share at least some of the blame for some of these broken marriages. Yes, Peter Cook is a creep, but four divorces?? Brinkley can't be completely blameless. Her poor kids...they will be in therapy for many years, I suspect.

Mary, Dallas, TX (Sent Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:29 PM)

Amy L. sure nailed it.  HE is ultimately responsible for his own actions.  Cook deserved all the humiliation that has and will come his way.  What a disgusting act to inflict on his entire family.  And the greed.  Cook wanted money.  Said he was happy and that he got all he wanted.  Does this guy needs to wobble his head, find the two marbles inside and start thinking and get LOTS of therapy.  YUCK!!!

Margie, Southampton, NY (Sent Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:00 PM)

I'm wondering why everyone is so quick to believe that Brinkley is without sin and Cook is a louse/jerk.  She is the one with 4 marriages, which leads me to think that maybe she is hard to get along with.  All we know of her is her public persona.  Yes, he was wrong to cheat. No excuse for it.  But, what was living with her like?  I'm wondering if being married to her is "hell on earth".

Jaydee, Doha Qatar (Sent Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:07 AM)

To the Carson that knows Christie:  The Christie you know is not the same one her husband knows behind closed doors.  So, please, don't think if one is perfect in public that they are the same in private.  

Janis (Sent Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:10 AM)

Maybe,Christie was afraid with the news of today,the children would would find out.Choosing to start with the truth.We teach our children not to lie.The truth isn't always pretty but,it's the truth.May god bless her family.

Pamela, Florida (Sent Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:45 AM)

Who gives a flip what these rich freaks do?  They are all devoid of morals and live only for the cameras and media.

sandra rich (Sent Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:19 PM)

Of course the kids knew what was going on, however I am pretty sure they did not want ALL of their friends to know.  I cant believe how many women will make excuses for the Ms. Brinkley doing this when she has cheated before too.  
 Some women are SO vindictive they have no idea what they are doing to their kids. Two parents hating each other only really hurts the kids.  We all get Cook is a jerk for cheating, but this "he started it" attitude by Ms. Brinkley is straight out of second grade.  Grow up, but please no more marriages!!

Jay,Hampton,VA (Sent Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:41 PM)

I think Christy is a head case! Always was, always will be. Give up on marriage as she always chooses the wrong mate.  5th husband a charm??? I think not.
I hope she realizes that therapy can help her, not another man.

celina malta, Cleveland, Ohio.c (Sent Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:54 PM)

I have to say that I am glad that I am removed from all of the sensationalism of Hollywood and "the rich and famous (notorious)". Why do we bother reading such slander and gossip?  We (and I include myself) are so intent on reading  magazines and and watching entertainment shows that only whet our appetite for more sensationalism on those that make millions! Why not focus more on the baby in Miami that had recently endured cardiac surgery or the young girl from the Filipines that recently had reconstructive surgery and can now walk for the first time in 15 years.  I don't care about Brinkley or Bradjolina (???) for that matter.  Let's focus on education and poverty instead.

Melinda Pagliarini, Tokyo Japan (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 7:21 AM)

I think it's sad when a marriage fails.  It has to be even more tragic when it's a very public split.  Even under the best of circumstances, you try to keep the ruinous parts private, but somehow all the junk seems to seep out.  Recently heard Brinkley say that she'd never marry again..maybe that's most brilliant thing she'll ever do.

wtaylor (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 8:14 AM)

Sorry, but I'm with Amy Longins and Linda, from Seattle.  The man brought all of it on himself, dragged it all out in public, and humiliated his family.  No pity for the fool.

Chris, Key West, FL (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 1:44 PM)

He had plenty of time to settle prior to the trial if he really cared about the kids.  He wanted money and got it, but luckily, not that much.

Katrin, PA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 4:35 PM)

Memo to Christie Brinkley-STOP getting married!!! ;)

David Smith, Newport Beach, CA (Sent Monday, July 14, 2008 5:42 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://testpattern.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1194963

More Test Pattern

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Links

Syndicate This Site

Add Test Pattern to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs