Paxton Et Moi

Well, Paxie, I just finished your "Lost Passages," and they are indeed lost, if you get my drift. I'll be brief(er) than I have been heretofore (ha-ha) because all the goodwill I was feeling has evaporated thanks to your coarseness masquerading as civility.

So let's go to the videotext…

"As I said in my original comment, these studies aren't conclusive. They need to be duplicated."

(Spit-take) That's like that definition of "insanity." You know the one I mean, I'm sure, what with your continuing to pay Mensa dues!?!

"Yet, I think they are enough to indicate that you shouldn't assume all liberals are 'stupid.'"

The error is yours in assuming that "stupid" is the opposite of "intelligent." It goes like this:

All liberals are Stupid.

All Mensa members are stupid.

You're both.

Therefore –

Jesus GOD!

" it is at least likely that they were conducted under proper scientific conditions to remove the affect of researcher bias."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

"the researchers who published these articles might be conservatives."

Wanna bet?

"Since they seem quite intelligent, they are probably liberals, based on the results of their own studies."

Have you ever considered doing stand-up? The only thing in question there is who got the grant?

"The president does… Anyone who still doesn't believe in global warming just has their head in the sand, but that's a different topic"

Man, what I would give to be around when you discover how wrong you are.

And that would be a whole lot of heads – even more than those whose heads would remain in th hot air if the latest tabulation of scientists is to be believed. But this reminds me of how people like to compare this to flat-earthers. It's more akin to the time when people actually believed the Earth was flat. Pity those enlightened souls who didn't, eh?

And that's now the second time you've made a reference to Bush. It's almost as if you think he carries some weight with me?.

"Catholic schools do tend to perform better than public schools, which is not surprising since they also tend to have lower student-to-teacher ratios."

In fact, it was exactly the opposite, and uh, you also have to pass an SAT-like test to get in. But I'm more interested in that fact that I was right about your public schooling.

"However, it does not necessarily follow that your Catholic high school was one of the ones that performed higher than the average public school."

Irrelevant. it's not about how any entire school performs.

"Therefore, it also doesn't necessarily follow that being an honors student at your particular high school means that you are exceptionally smart."

Utterly and totally illogical. You've engaged in flawed reasoning (and you didn't know it) to arrive at a possibly valid point.

And now let's look at this as one:

"it also doesn't necessarily follow that being an honors student at your particular high school means that you are exceptionally smart… I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe you're intelligent"

Then the latter renders the former irrelevant – and worse, superfluous.

"I simply don't believe that you have much in the way of critical thinking skills."

I assure you, I do nothing but think critically… especially where liberals… and now Mensans are concerned, which had been previously off the radar since all of you were somewhere out there…

"You approach every topic with bias and prejudice,"

What a biased and prejudiced thing to say. And completely irrelevant since you do the same, you just frame yours differently.

"discount any opposing evidence out of hand,"

Do not. I merely discount irrelevant and nonsensical "evidence." There is no one more open-minded than I, and if anyone claims otherwise, I'll punch his face in.

"and readily engage in ad hominim attacks,"

Illogical in what you assume that demonstrates. For example, Al Gore does the same thing, and you wouldn't accuse that fat con man of being biased and prejudiced, would you?

Kidding, I'm sure you would.

"all signs of a person with an undisciplined mind,"

Another terribly biased comment, and it assumes facts not in evidence. I'll have you know I've done extensive self-examinations (I won't say where), and I can state conclusively that my entire demeanor is due to extreme prejudice against idiots of the sort who engage in, among other things, amateur psychology. I mean even the pros aren't competent to engage in it.

"despite your assertion that the "Brothers" taught you such discipline."

You're engaging in substitution. The brothers did teach discipline, and I did learn it, but that doesn't mean I always employ it. but either way, it's always conscious, so… you see, I'm disciplined either way!?!

"I didn't presume anything. The phrase to which your responding is a quote from the article to which I linked. That's why there are quotation marks around it."

Oh how I pray that "your" was a typo, because it's like one of the biggest factors in guaging stupidity that currently exists.

Anyway, well then, I presumed that you presumed it because most people submit quotes when they agree with them

"As for "societal coarseness," you are the best example of that that I've seen."

Thank you, it took practice… and discipline. I was once very shy, but I finally realized, enough is enough.

However, there's is a small problem with your observation… it assumes that I was one who either caused the problem (which you seem to agree exists) or advanced it, when mine is simply a reaction to it. I just want to use language young people today can understand. My mother brought me up right, I assure you.

" STDs are a huge problem in society, but their spread is not caused by liberal thinking."

(Spit-take) Although in a sense, that's true… it's people acting on liberal thinking who spread them.

"It's caused by promiscuity and a lack of prophylactic precaution"

Oh I LOVE that! Prophylactic Precaution. There must be something to Mensa after all.

And.. this arose spontaneously? You know, like evolution? And matter?

"which is in turn promoted by ignorance."

Aka, liberal thinking.

"As it happens, I have been married and monogamous for fifteen years,"

Forgive me for asking, but do both involve the same woman?

"and yet the some of the most conservative people I know are also the most promiscuous."

Anecdotal and self-serving. Assumes facts not in evidence… and possibly that you're a voyeur.

"You are making wild leaps in logic"

Please see your comment immediately above – you should be doing logic leaps in the Olympics.

"by linking liberal thinking with STDs, which only adds credance to my original comment."

Shows and abrupt termination in reasoning and a lack of spell checking. STDs are not a result of liberal thinking, they are due to ignorance? Yet they correlate with the rise in permissiveness? And were people less ignorant 50 years ago? If so, why? If they were just as ignorant, why were there so many less STDs. Plus you're adding your own extra credence which isn't allowed here.

This seems to indicate that you're biased, closed-minded, short-sighted and fearful of basic facts and truths… which lends credence to the conclusion I have reached about liberals

"Smart people sometimes do dumb things,"

They often do dumb things, You're proving that by the moment here…

"Mensa… there are a lot of strange people in it."

If it's not, that should be their slogan!

"They are all intelligent"

Proving my point…. dumb strange, you say potato…

"but they don't all know how to use their intelligence"

My God, I just felt a tingle up my leg.

"Many Mensans have Formula One race cars for brains,"

I'd use a somewhat more basic characterization involving bodily functions.

"There is not a one-to-one correlation between IQ and political orientation, which is what your post implies."

Huh? How did I imply that? In fact who even brought up IQ? You're still assuming that stupidity is the absence of intelligence. In fact, in the study I referenced elsewhere, the authors didn't reference IQ. They measured knowledge levels. You aren't implying that people with high IQs automatically know more about any subject that less intelligent people, are you?

"I joined Mensa because my wife wanted me to"

Oh that's just too good. The little woman made you do it, did she? You don't want me to expand on that, I'm sure.

"and I humored her."

Save this. Soon you'll look back and realize how pathetic that reads. I actually felt a little sorry for you for a second.

Then I remembered, being a liberal, you have no shame…

"I stay in Mensa because…

Stop it, you're killin' me!

"I enjoy the company"

LOL!

"I don't know if you have friends, but if you do, you'll understand."

And even if I don't!?!

"I personally think Mensa is a silly organization"

ROFL. So it's really inertia that keeps you in it!

"they stand for nothing other than getting people of like intelligence together. On the other hand, I've had rather amazing discussions with my fellow Mensans"

So I guess you'd call it all a happy accident? And may I ask, what is the IQ differential that causes you to regard someone else's input in a discussion as inconsequential? And do people submit their scores at the conclusion of each comment so others will know how seriously to regard them?

And I would love to hear the subject of one of those amazing discussions, not to mention sit in on one. I bet I;d come away wishing I watched My Dinner With Andre again instead.

"I mentioned my affiliation with Mensa only to disprove your implication that all liberals were stupid."

Then the prosecution rests, Your Honor.

"You have turned that around to mean that since Mensans are stupid, I am, in fact, stupid."

Your Honor, defendant has turned around my words to say something that the record shows I never said… In fact, defendant is stupid independent of Mensa. But let the record show that though Mensonians are decidedly not unintelligent, their synapses do seem to frequently misfire. It could be that with so many brains, thoughts don't know which route to take.

But yes, if all Menophytes are stupid, and you are one as you claim, then you are, de facto, stupid.

"You certainly have a right to that opinion"

Wow, thanks. Do I also have the right to an opinion that, for example, homosexuals are deviants?

"if you believe that high IQ, academic and professional success, financial security, and a stable, happy life are signs of low intelligence. I have all of these things. I am not bragging"

No, not at all. Just taking inventory?

Now, Straw Man Alert:

"I'm simply telling you that being a liberal doesn't preclude you from these things"

What has that got to do with anything whosoever in the entire history of this discussion" Other than to assuage your insecurity, that is?

"You're proud that you spend your time baiting people into arguments?"

Well, yes… and when it hooks someone like you, I often pose for pictures.

But see, no one made you come here. So you're telling me that you're weak, which is something I already knew. I mean, you don't see me hanging around your blog, do you?

You know, I should do that though. I bet I'm missing the boat. I bet I'd learn a lot about Mensa and success… and peer review.

"It seems a pretty sad way to spend your time, actually."

Writing that sentence is a pretty sad way to spend time. I mean, that's a "get a life" knockoff, and I feel the same way about Mensa, which probably saps a lot more time because your wife made you do it, and now you can't quit.

So really, your comment was merely an indirect way of building yourself up. making you feel better about your own choices. Was it conscious or subconscious. I'd guess the former.

Everyone is just trying to get through, and all of it, this, your amazing Mensaroom experiences, your PhD quest, it's all meaningless.

Besides, I have specifically said a number of times that I don't want to hear from people. I write, you read, it ends there. So you've brought all this on yourself because, as you indicate, you couldn't resist… just as I expect will happen with the next you.

"I don't really know why I felt like doing it today."

That doesn't sound very Mensa-like. Mensa-LITE, maybe?

Then by all means, let me tell you why you're here. You felt you had a killer point and you wanted to put me in my place. But you couldn't do that, so you rationalize that you did and that I just wouldn't hear you. That allows your psyche to get out unscathed… or does it? On the one hand, you know you'll never encounter the likes of me elsewhere, but you'll also be wondering how you could have committed such an amazing faux pas here being the genius that you are.

"People like you are too full of hate to think rationally,"

You wish. That's simply another rationalization constructed for your own internal needs. In fact, other than George Bush, Bob Melvin, and all liberals, I don't hate anybody. Besides, there's no reason why one can't be filled with hate and still think rationally. True they may have moments of severe irrationality, not unlike you have here, and hatred itself can be very rational.

And you call yourself a psychologist?

Although you just reminded me of Andy Griffith in No Time For Sergeants:

"Hey, I got a uncle I hate. He always wants to wrassle with the mule, and he gets all wore out, and the mule gets all wore out…… no, come to think of it, I don't hate him either."

"therefore any sort of discussion is pointless."

Well, I wouldn't say pointless, I mean at least one of us enjoyed this one!?! You're just unhappy that you didn't get the payoff you sought – but which you didn't define going in. Your mistake… and terribly undisciplined.

"I guess I felt I needed to vent, for which you have been very helpful."

That's what I'm here for. OK, so if I understand you, and there's absolutely no reason i should, you're not unhappy that you were suckered in?

"Go on baiting people into one-sided arguments based on fallacious premises."

LOL!!! Oh I will, and I love the qualifiers!!!

"If it allows you to believe you've done something useful during the day so that you can sleep at night, so be it."

Again assumes facts not in evidence. I have no interest in doing anything useful here. I mean, conservatives know what liberals are and they're too weak to be me. And I can't convert any liberals who frequent blogs and forums because they merely use them to reinforce their views. In fact, very few liberals in real life are capable of seeing the light. The only person I ever converted was my little mail order bride, and with her, all I said was, "STOP IT or I'm sending you back."

That said, if you know how to create a Vista boot CD, call me and all is forgiven.

Your possible new best friend,

Ted

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Paxton Et Moi

  1. Man made Global Warming is an ersatz religion.

  2. TedWest says:

    And Paxie's comment about it is the single most fantastically stupid thing he said. I don't want to go into detail here in case he attempts to defend his untenable position, But as you know, and as you saw if you waded through all that's occurred here in recent days, Paxie's reasoning, when it makes any sense at all, comes to an abrupt halt whenever proceeding further might leave him on the proverbial slab of Arctic ice without a paddle.

  3. Paxton says:

    As usualy, I will skip the ad hominem attacks, which means that I am skipping the majority of your post.
    That's like that definition of "insanity."
    Yes, I know the one you mean. Despite the humorous aphorism, it's also good scientific process. If one person performs a study or experiment and comes out with a particular result, other scientists try similar studies or experiments to see if they come out with the same result. If multiple scientists reach the same conclusions following a duplication of the experiments, then the results are deemed less likely to be a fluke of the process.
    This is a basic concept of the scientific method. It's too bad the "Brothers" didn't teach it to you.
    Man, what I would give to be around when you discover how wrong you are.
    About which, that the President believes in global warming, or that it's happening at all? Specificity in writing is a virtue. The link I had in the comment was to a transcript of a speech given by the President discussing global warming, and it is very clear from the speech that he has acknowledged that global warming is indeed occurring. The only thing the President doesn't agree with environmentalists on in this regard is: 1, that any significant portion of the warming is anthropogenic, 2, that reducing man-made sources of greenhouse gases may slow or stop global warming, and 3, that taking significant efforts to reduce greenhouse gases is worthwhile. The science behind proving these additional points is complex, and there are pros and cons to both sides, but I stand behind my original statement that whether or not global warming is even happening is no longer an issue of serious debate.
    And that would be a whole lot of heads – even more than those whose heads would remain in th hot air if the latest tabulation of scientists is to be believed.
    That is almost a sentence. Good for you! As for the content of said proto-sentence, would you care to provide a link, or should I just take your word for it? The opinions of the vast majority of scientific organizations with any credibility are that global warming is occurring.
    In fact, it was exactly the opposite
    Could be. I don't know where you went to school. That wasn't my point. Catholic schools, on average, have lower student-teacher ratios than public schools.
    you also have to pass an SAT-like test to get in
    Again… maybe at your particular Catholic school. I know that is not true of all Catholic schools.
    Irrelevant. it's not about how any entire school performs.
    Oh, but it is. You implied that simply by being on the honor roll at a Catholic school, you were demonstrably an extremely intelligent person. To know whether that is true or not I would have to know the general performance of your school. If your school was a poor performer, producing below-average students, then an honor-roll student at your school might only be average at another, more stringent school.
    Oh how I pray that "your" was a typo, because it's like one of the biggest factors in guaging stupidity that currently exists.
    It was a typo. For the sake of reciprocity, I will also assume that your mispelling of the word "gauging" is also a typo. I'm sure that you don't want me to list and explain your abuses of English grammar. Vox may run out of hard drive space.
    And were people less ignorant 50 years ago?
    Not likely.
    If they were just as ignorant, why were there so many less STDs.
    I will assume that was a question, despite the lack of a question mark. With the exception of HIV/AIDS, all of the known STDs that exist today existed fifty years ago. In terms of the number of cases, at least in the U.S., the trends are mixed. The rates of chlamydia have gone up while the rates of gonorrhea and syphilis have gone down. As you like to say, you have assumed facts not in evidence. If our society is more promiscuous than it was fifty years ago (also a fact not in evidence), then it is not having a clear effect on STD rates.
    And may I ask, what is the IQ differential that causes you to regard someone else's input in a discussion as inconsequential?
    Unlike you, I don't dismiss another person's comments out of hand. At least, not until they have proven themselves to be incapable of rational thought, such as you have.
    I have specifically said a number of times that I don't want to hear from people. I write, you read, it ends there.
    That's easy enough to fix. Turn off the comments feature. If you leave the comments turned on, I must assume you want comments. It's like signing up for an email address in the hopes that you never receive email.
    you know you'll never encounter the likes of me elsewhere
    Hope springs eternal, and yet it seems likely that I will meet many people like you over the course of my lifetime. You see, you are common. I've met dozens of people like you in the past, possibly hundreds. If I live to the age of the average American, I will likely meet hundreds more. Despite your conceit, you are certainly not unique.
    And you call yourself a psychologist?
    No. Where did I ever say I was a psychologist? Certainly not in any of our discussions.
    Well, I wouldn't say pointless, I mean at least one of us enjoyed this one!?!
    I'm sorry, was that an exclamation or a question? The grammatical issues aside, you really should pick a form of punctuation.
    You're just unhappy that you didn't get the payoff you sought
    I did, actually. The sweetest part is that you don't even realize it.
    you're not unhappy that you were suckered in?
    Not at all. Arguing with someone like you with persuasion as a goal is always pointless, but it's been a long time since I've had a debate with someone so thoroughly my inferior. It takes different skills to discuss issues or philosophy with someone as irrational as you than it does with an intellectual equal. It's been good exercise.
    The only person I ever converted was my little mail order bride, and with her, all I said was, "STOP IT or I'm sending you back."
    Oh, that's precious. Couldn't get a woman without paying for her, eh?
    And I can't convert any liberals who frequent blogs and forums because they merely use them to reinforce their views.
    Actually, almost all of the links I have used in our discussion has been from official or academic sources, or were in turn based on information from such.
    if you know how to create a Vista boot CD, call me and all is forgiven.
    I won't call you, but this looks promising.
    Your possible new best friend
    Not likely.

  4. TedWest says:

    1) This warming argument is irrefutable. And if you think it's occurring and that man has a role in it, that's your opinion, not a proven fact. However, you could set me straight by providing something irrefutable in return?!?
    2) Scientific method does not guarantee certainty. I've been through all this before with other warming idiots.
    3) There is no consensus, you've been ill-informed.. in all matters, I might add. That's the Mark of the Mensan
    4) What's happening in schools now is irrelevant, Class sizes in Catholic schools back when were much larger than in public schools and yet students performed better, thus rendering the size-quality argument moot except to people like yourself – ye of the unchangeable mindset.
    5) I did not imply that being on the honor roll meant anything. I was already an extremely intelligent person and the school happened to recognized it (unlike public schools) Furthermore, your comment about the overall standing of the school is, in fact, irrelevant, since there is no way of determining rankings and even if there were, it has no bearing on a specific individual. I can't explain this to you without going into detail, and frankly, you've demonstrated an inability to grasp the subtlties… as well as the not so subtle. Curiously though, your comment about school rankings is akin the the Krugman argument on warming – a sort of all or nothing, which, says more about you that you're capable of realizing.
    Which brings me to your difficulty in understanding some of the things I've told you. You assume the problem is mine I assure you the problem is yours, and you're again demonstrating the characteristics of those in the study I cited.
    Look, I realize that this is new to you. You're not used to being told you're stupid. Your environment as you've described it seems protective of that as well as your ego. But I'm telling you that while you appear to know a lot about -things-, your reasoning is faulty. Like John, you simply don't understand what's important and what's not, and even when you have a command of the facts, you seem unable so understand that you're not making the point you want to make. I'd like to see a study of people like you because from my experience, this is quite a common phenomenon.
    That said, in a few minutes, I shall demonstrate conclusively that you're stupid.

    6) My typo was clearly a typo… yours wasn't. Yours is a common mistake, and it was suspicious because you've made a lot of other common mistakes, the biggest of which is thinking that you're particularly intelligent.
    7) Your inability to conclude that people have become more promiscuous or that the STD rate may not have changed much are "Johnisms." I'm reminded of him saying that the divorce rate was actually higher in the 1930s. Preposterous even to you, right? So I merely asked him to document that… two years ago…
    8) Your conclusion that I am incapable of rational thought draws attention to your inability to recognize it, and is probably why you have so much difficulty in understanding what makes logical sense. Remember, Mensa doesn't require a demonstration of rationality, and that article I linked to indicates that Mensa's standards are, in fact, quite low once you get past the piece of paper.
    9) "And you call yourself a psychologist? 'No. Where did I ever say I was a psychologist? Certainly not in any of our discussions'"
    Psyche
    I know what you are.
    10) You – assume- I want comments, and you base that on the fact that comments are allowed… unbelievably faulty reasoning. Does a company that allows, even solicits, comments want to hear from idiots? Now just look at this mess…
    "If you leave the comments turned on, I must assume you want comments. It's like signing up for an email address in the hopes that you never receive email."
    Incredible. You actually posted that! Do you know that there are people out there who think you make perfect sense?
    Tell them… tell them NOW!
    You ASSUME? YOU? And then you assume wrongly? How will you ever live that down? And then you liken is to something that's not only preposterous, it literally doesn't happen? You manufactured a non-example? Now compare that to my "company" example and tell me which makes more sense.
    I want intelligent, rational comments. Normally, I'd have cut you off long ago, but I must admit to being completely and totally amused by the fact that you claim to be both intelligent and busy, and yet you continue to respond, and this despite the fact that I've told you that I'm exploiting this very flaw as much as time and you will allow.
    There are at least two explanations, neither of which is flattering to you – that you simply can't walk away now, or you actually consider me to be more able than you want to admit. So let me tell you directly – you need to walk away. You have nothing to gain here. Anyone watching you is, at best, perplexed. At worst, they're thinking, "That guy's crazy." And they're talking about you, since they already know that I am.
    But again, being crazy doesn't mean that one is not intelligent as you know firsthand, but again, this is my blog, and I'm conducting business as I've designed, and I'm controlling you… unless you think you're controlling me in which that would be your most convoluted bit of reasoning yet.
    And don't think you can post again and then say you're done. I mean, you can certainly to that, but you'll have already succumbed to my latest gambit. You didn't realize that you had nothing to gain by commenting here, and you haven't even realized that whatever you think you've accomplished, you have nothing further to gain despite my already having told you that you don't. i actually try to help you, and you can't even grasp that. I'd like to say that I find this amazing, but in fact, besides amusing, it is merely confirming.
    Now, I promised that I would prove you're stupid, and it's an unbelievably simple thing to do: you support Obama. That not only requires no reasoning, it requires a lack of reason. Of course, you could be a socialist or just plain evil?!?
    I don't think you're the latter, and I'm not sure about the former, though I'd hate to have to decide now based on your "government good" comment, so that leaves – stupid.
    And you're a lot like The Great Bobo… you have a decent command of English, you don't reason well, you make preposterous associations and comments, and you think you're smarter than other people. Do you also refuse to admit the surge has worked?
    So in line with your good schools/bad schools argument, let me ask: is a stupid Mensan stupider than a plain old stupid idiot?
    Time will tell…
    Btw, "I'm sorry, was that an exclamation or a question?"
    What? You're unfamiliar with… Then permit me to educate you…
    And as Michael Scott says, everybody in the world can provide input, so you know it has to be right
    True it's non-standard, but then so am I, and all this isn't what it seems, anyway. which is why it was doubly amusing that you think you have me where you want me.
    "The grammatical issues aside, you really should pick a form of punctuation."
    I did. The second exclamation point is merely artistic license.
    What, you also didn't realize this is a show and you're the man on the street… now, the man in the street?
    Btw², It seems you may be improving on your own ad hominems. Perhaps that's why you're still here? I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want it known that you're taking lessons.
    Btw³, You seem particularly sensitive to any criticism of your spelling, punctuation, grammar.. such that you're anxious to strike back quickly and trivially. Some call that "knee-jerk." I just call it "jerk." Because you should know that I passed by many other examples over the weeks we've been corresponding so as to be considerate of your sensitivities, and I only brought up the one that was very concerning, bordering on unnerving… to both of us. But you reassured me that it was a mistake, and we moved on… or so I thought. But I should add that when I see you continue to be fixated on your error and that you haven't been able to point out enough examples of my own typos to satisfy your desire for revenge, it does make me question why I'm so damn considerate of morons. The first time you used it, you misspelled "ad hominem." I can't tell you how tempting it was to mercilessly and relentlessly bring that up on every possible occasion, but being the gentleman that I am, I exercised discipline and refrained. But now, you call yourself an English teacher?!?

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