On a somewhat disappointing correspondence

I recall reading in Wittgenstein somewhere (Notes on Certainty?) of his fear of insanity: isn’t it possible, he asked, that one could be insane without knowing it? While Wittgenstein may have been right in point of fact to doubt his sanity (the state of his own mental health was often unclear), the general point seems underappreciated to me. We sometimes experience disagreements so bewildering that we may even be unable to locate the source of the disagreement. Such encounters leave us wondering whether the other parties to the epistemic conflict are really sane at all. By symmetry, shouldn’t we extend that doubt to ourselves?

(Attention conservation notice: long, boring, internet drama, arguably with no moral to the story)

Readers who have not personally experienced this doubt will perhaps be familiar with the “imposter syndrome”, wherein a person who has reached a status of high office will doubt whether they really belong there, or just haven’t been found out yet. If it’s possible, say, to present one’s work at a conference and wonder: “maybe they’re just being nice to me”, one might emerge from an especially protacted, fruitless debate and realize with horror: “maybe I’m the crazy one!”

This thought recurs to me after a very depressing exchange, or series of exchanges, on a well-regarded philosophy blog. Although I had decided before I finished my undergraduate studies that I wasn’t interested in pursuing the field professionally, I still find it avocationally rewarding and like to keep in touch through online communities. I think I found the Feminist Philosophers blog through their post on the death of Ruth Barcan Marcus, whose work was very significant to me when I was an undergraduate. I shared some (kind of dopey) memories of my one personal encounter with her, and followed the blog afterwards. I think gender is interesting as a philosophical topic, and the blog also made a central point of addressing the status of women in the academy, to which it encouraged me to keep a more conscious eye in my own life. For what it’s worth, I also consider myself a feminist (or feminist-ally, or feminist 3rd lieutenant junior grade, etc.) in the sense that I think most women are done substantial injustice through sexist attitudes and the denial of opportunities and privileges afforded to equivalently-situated men.

After a few exchanges in the comment threads, I was reminded of an experience of a friend. She was trained as a philosopher, and was talking to a few students in another field. She was soon surprised to find that her questions, which she intended as signals of genuine interest in their research, were interpreted as hostile aggression. Her conclusion was that philosophers are just trained differently than other folks in the humanities, and have different norms about the comparative values of signaling support and getting at the truth. I can’t help but note a parallel to the present unpleasantness on that blog: in about a month of commenting, I was denounced as a troll, quasi-banned, and backhandedly called autistic to boot.

I found the entire affair extremely disappointing for several reasons, but perhaps most so for being accused of trolling. As I understand it, the term “troll” has a very useful technical sense which denotes a specific species of internet dramatist. A troll is one who argues insincerely, provoking pointless disputes over topics about which they may not actually care, in order to inflame emotions. On one hand, needless provocation is a pitfall to which all online communities are more or less prone, and one does well to take reasonable steps to contain it. On the other, there is kind of Nietzschean danger in making accusations of trolling, as one risks growing intellectually lazy by dismissing sincere but opposing views. The reader will probably already have guessed which scenario I think more likely here.

The first significant exchange concerned the story of Barbara Johnson, a lesbian woman who was denied Communion at her mother’s funeral. For those who don’t want to relive that thread: I noted that while my sympathies were (obviously) with Johnson, and that decent people in bigoted religious institutions should either try to change or abandon them, it didn’t follow that Johnson had a moral claim to receive Communion, just because people don’t have moral claims to participate in other people’s religious rituals as a general principle. You can read the entire sorry thing here.

What dispirited me most about the ensuing conversation (besides spending an embarrassing word count repeatedly clarifying and reclarifying a pretty straightforward view) was the near-total lack of discursive traction with most of my interlocutors. With one notable exception, I sensed a radical failure to communicate and establish basic propositions, as though we were speaking through a dimensional rift, some Achewoodesque Magical Realist Payphone. I don’t believe I ever received a response to the argument that one cannot have a moral claim that other people participate in a religious ritual with them, or an acknowledgment that this, and not some latent animus against Johnson, was the core of my argument.

The second exchange was prompted by the shamefully pointless death of Trayvon Martin, a black youth in Florida who was killed in an unprovoked shooting by George Zimmerman, a white latino community watch guard. From the publicly known facts, it seems fairly patent that Zimmerman is guilty of murder and that the police-work on the case was compromised by serious racial prejudice. Zimmerman, however, was not even arrested at the scene and currently remains uncharged.

Martin’s death was a hideous, shamefully pointless crime, and I hope that it will at least occasion renewed attention to the social and legal circumstances that must have contributed to his murder and its handling by the police. It is hard to know where to begin: stricter guidelines with meaningful penalties for the procedural police-work that was mishandled might serve to counter-act the conscious or unconscious biases of the responding officers. (Although who knows whether the responding officers’ conduct is already illegal and/or tortuous?) Perhaps a mandatory arrest law for shootings, on analogy with domestic violence calls, would do good. Beyond that lie the broader and more difficult social problems that have led to the shootings of so many unarmed young black men.

Many commenters have also found fault in Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which broadens the permissible scope of deadly force in self-defense to hold that one does not have a duty to retreat from any place where one has the right to be. Opponents of the statute claimed that the law protects Zimmerman’s conduct, or at least obstructs his prosecution, and called for its repeal. One such call was re-blogged on Feminist Philosophers recently.

It is difficult to know what to make of the argument. The law’s drafters have claimed that it doesn’t apply, since one cannot claim self-defense in circumstances of one’s own provocation, such as Zimmerman’s. Though I’m not a lawyer, that sounds about right to me. If the law does protect such conduct, however unlikely, then it obviously requires amendment.

But clearly, I think, if a public appeal is made to strike the law, then it is apropos to discuss the law and consider whether it should be stricken or not. Opponents are concerned that it could enlarge the set of justifiable homicides, and therefore enable more murders and/or hinder their prosecution. Throw in a racist society, in which courts are more lenient with white murderers of black victims, and the result is a law which licenses more shootings generally, and disproportionately endangers black victims. At least, I think that’s a fair reconstruction of the argument.

I am still undecided as to the argument’s merits. One can see the prosecutorial appeal of criminalizing as many homicides as practically possible, even if it might imprison justified shooters at the margin. For example, a parent’s warning that “I don’t care who started it, next time you’re both punished!” can be effective in keeping the peace even if it risks blaming the victim of a sibling’s aggression. Paraphrasing Don Corleone, a narrow right to self-defense embodies the hope that ‘violent confrontations don’t happen to people who go to jail for violent confrontations’.

On the other hand, there are many scenarios in which the narrower right results in literal victim-blaming. Many activist groups historically have relied on the right to challenge violent intimidation with deadly force instead of retreating; resistance to rape raises a similar question. Bringing such shooters, themselves the imminent victims of crime, to court and trying to determine whether they tried hard enough to flee strikes me a poor outcome as well.

The point, at end, is that the law might be good or bad (I am still unsure, but lean towards bad.) If Martin’s death leads indirectly to the repeal of a bad law, then that is one piece of good to emerge from the tragedy. It is all but incontrovertible, though, that the law does not shield Zimmerman in this case, since Zimmerman has no claim at all to self-defense, not even a narrow one.

These are the points I tried to offer at Feminist Philosophers. Soon, comments on the same topic were deleted, and my complaint about this got me stuffed into the moderation queue.

I’m genuinely dismayed by this. I talked over beers today with my best friend from high school, now a Gender Studies Ph.D. student, and my fiancee, a former English major now teaching at a Title I school, hoping to put my Wittgenstein-style doubts about my sanity to rest. It would be pointless to repeat their testimony (“Well, my friends agree with me!…”) but I took stock in my friend’s observation that groupthink is not just what our opponents do, but a real and constant epistemic threat to which all of us are liable. I was also reminded that all three of us grew up in online communities, and variously outgrew some of them as they changed or we changed. I should remind myself that I found value even in those I left. I’m still not sure who changed this time, but I never wrote anything I can’t live with.


9 Responses to On a somewhat disappointing correspondence

  1. John Protevi says:

    “I think gender is interesting as a philosophical topic”

    This is the root of the affective disconnect. The people on whose blog you are commenting live gender as a dominating social reality and have committed their lives to understanding and fighting that reality. So when you drop in to bloodlessly split hairs in “arguments” on a “philosophical topic” you find “interesting” you display your lived privilege. Mutatis mutandis for race in the Martin case.

    The basic problem is that you turn a blog into a seminar room and then latch onto minute infelicities and focus attention on them, losing the forest for the trees, and turning a collective discussion into a display of your individual dialectical prowess.

    So we finally come to the even deeper problem: the political disconnect between your vision of philosophy blogs — a venue for individual jousting — and that of FP (if I can speak for them) and New APPS (for which I can certainly speak) — a collective search for means to continue our struggles. Of course that search includes conceptual clarification, but you have mistaken that collective effort for individualist contrarian displays, and this is what drives your inability to get on the same wavelength and be a valued member of the community rather than a minor annoyance.

  2. synapseandsyntax says:

    Even if I concede the strongest possible claim about the epistemic disadvantage that privilege imposes on me, Anne is talking about changing a law. If we want to change a law, we need to be able to offer universally accessible reasons, which no opponent of the law seemed ready to do. If you can’t do that, then you’re not really talking about the law. You may be doing something else that’s valuable to you, but I can’t see what it has to do with “understanding and fighting [unjust] reality”. An accusation of privilege-induced ignorance is not a “win an argument free” card. I’ve addressed the specific issue of the law , the broader question of self-defense, and my understanding of their relationship to a racist judicial system here and at FP at length. I even concur with Anne that the law is probably a bad one. But I think it’s an honest question, and it’s dishonest to dismiss it with “because privilege” as soon as one finds oneself losing the elenchus. My thoughts on this are roughly ajkreider’s here.

    I’m happy to be shown where I’ve erred latched onto minute details. I’m less happy to be accused of that without explanation.

    Your juxtaposition of the “collective discussion” with my “individualist” comments is kind of obscure, but you can see (starting here) that my reservations about Anne’s use of the “argument from deletion” are far from unique.

  3. John Protevi says:

    I was not criticizing your argumentative performance, I was explaining why the thread degenerated. It degenerated because you turned a collective endeavor into an individualist display. When you grasp the difference between philosophy as jousting and philosophy as collective effort, then you’ll see why trying to “win arguments” is only one way of doing philosophy, and one that is ill-suited to political efforts such as those called for in response to the Martin case.

  4. synapseandsyntax says:

    You keep reiterating this cryptic assertion about my ill-judged “individualist displays” as opposed to the properly “collective” efforts that characterize the other comments in that thread. I still don’t understand what you intend to communicate by that.

    I would also be careful about the use of factive verbs like “explain”, since they conventionally presume the truth of their objects. Another explanation for the degeneration of the thread, one shared by several other members of the “collective”, is that a moderator started deleting comments that doubted her own interpretation of a factual legal point.

    That’s not intellectually honest, and I’m surprised that anyone would defend it.

    • John Protevi says:

      OK, I offered an attempt at an explanation. You posted here wondering why you were called a troll and put in moderation.

      Here’s a more full attempt at an explanation. First, blogs are communities, and have histories; it takes time to earn the confidence of the moderators, and you haven’t done that. The way to do that is to enter into the spirit of the blog, but you haven’t seemed to be able to do that.

      From my observation and participation over the past 15 months there, FP doesn’t mind dispute, and though they prefer collaboration, they don’t like contrarianism, though it’s tolerated. Your two forays there were heavily contrarian; you follow a certain manner of doing philosophy that assumes that the truth will emerge from individual battles, from each person attempting to “win the argument.” It’s a little bit “King of the Hill,” a little bit the adversarial practice in the American judicial.

      This is what I mean by individualist displays of dialectical prowess. But, that’s only one way of doing philosophy; another is to co-operate with others who co-operate; I don’t see what’s mysterious about the distinction between collectivist co-operation and individual competition, but I guess until one lives that distinction by putting co-operation into practice it’s going to sound “cryptic,” so I’ll stop with that line.

      So that’s in general. In particular, both your comment thread inputs followed Nemo, who has the reputation of being a contrarian there. So that didn’t help you establishing a trustworthy reputation either. Both times you and he picked a very small point in the big picture and hung on for dear life to win the argument. So for example, in the lesbian / funeral thread, you didn’t collaborate in working toward a better understanding of the entire incident, including homophobia and misogyny, you latched onto some tiny point and made a big deal of it. Similarly with Martin. FP linked to Guenther’s post at New APPS asking what would justice look like for Martin. Here is here list of points:

      “A lot more would have to happen, and some of it is starting to happen. We would need a nation-wide recognition of the degree to which young black men are perceived as predators and as “out of place,” even in their own neighborhoods. We would need to wake up to the fact that black men are so often victims of violence and not just perpetrators of violence. We would need to recognize all the work that black men do to set the rest of us at ease in social situations, in order to convince us that we have nothing to fear from them. We would need to confront our complicity as a nation with the over-incarceration of black and Latino men — and with the over-incarceration of Americans more generally. We would need to repeal laws like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and others that enshrine the right to self-defense, even to the point of using lethal force, if you feel like your life or the life of others are threatened. We would need to pass laws restricting the use and availability of handguns. We would need to recognize structural racism at work, whether or not any “racist slurs” are uttered.”

      Out of this entire graf, Nemo picked the SYG law, and you followed him. This is what I mean by losing the forest for the trees, and finding a small thing on which you can score points and win arguments. Then after repeatedly being told not to do that by the moderator, you keep at it. Then Nemo cut-and-pastes a huge chunk of the law. This is deleted. You then take up Nemo’s case, as if he’s been done an injustice, as if this deletion wasn’t intellectually honest rather than perfectly well within a moderator’s rights to keep a discussion on track and focused on the big picture rather than being derailed (as is Nemo’s specialty at FP).

      So, this is my attempt at an explanation for why the moderator had this to say to you at 41 in the Martin thread:

      “S AND S: a young black man with a box of skittles and a can of ice tea was shot dead. You want to discuss the justification for the decision that discussions of the right to self defense are inappropriate?

      I am initially tempted to try to get you to see what’s going on. I’m very concerned about not shutting off people who are neuro-atypical, and who might see a post about, e.g., a funeral as a good occasion to discuss something most of us would regard as irrelevant. But your case seems to me not like that. The distractions, derailings seem much more intentional.

      So in fact I am feeding a troll. You do need to be on the moderated list.”

      • I appreciate this reply. Let me try to address the two more concrete points first.

        In the matter of Trayvon Martins case, the question of the SYG law, rightly or wrongly, is one of the most central questions to have emerged. As commenter Andy observes, this view is shared by many newspapers of record, and is supported by author’s own inclusion of it in the newAPPS post. The charge that I’ve given disproportionate attention to it seems like a hard one to back up: commenters at any blog will find certain points or less interesting than others, and it’s not like it makes sense to insist that everyone discuss topics in proportion to their word count in the original post. The fact that the law is now widely discussed in public makes it ipso facto an important question. Further, the only comments about the law to be deleted were those which countered a moderator’s opinion: it’s fine to defend the merits of the law, as many commenters did, but off-limits to criticize it?

        I must interject, by the way, that “scoring points and winning arguments” is unnecessarily uncharitable. We needn’t assume as much about deep psychological motivations if we merely said: Nemo didn’t agree, and so raised that point civilly. Which is precisely what the moderation policy is supposed to encourage people to do.

        In the matter of Barbara Johnson’s case, whether one can have a claim to participate in a religious ceremony is the question on which the entire thing hinges. If one cannot have a claim to participate in other people’s religious ceremonies, then the claim that Johnson was wronged doesn’t cohere. You may not agree (I admit it is a bullet-biting position) but it’s hardly a minor detail. It has serious implications for how people who are treated unequitably within a religion’s rituals should proceed.

        So, in both cases, I maintain that the points I raised seem pretty central. I’ve even tried to make cases for the centrality of those points in the threads themslves. If, however, I was mistaken about that, and we should have been talking about some other points, then shouldn’t that case be made with a comment rather than the ban-hammer? In the comment of Anne’s that you quote, she in fact ignores the answers to her rhetorical question that I already gave her in #37 and #39. Instead, she continues moderating with a hammer.

        My reasons, by the way, for “taking up the case” don’t have much to do with Nemo or myself being done injustice, even though it really is objectively not nice to delete other people’s efforts without prior warning, either through a comment policy or direct communication. My concerns, as I wrote in #39, were that it’s intellectually corrupting to the environment of the comments as a whole, and contradicts the stated policy. My thoughts about that are captured concisely by swallerstein, an old hand at FP, here.

        That brings us tidily to your comments about getting with “the spirit of the blog”. One way to try to spell out the spirit of the blog would just be to say that any disagreement is just totally verboten, and if you embarrass someone by disagreeing with them, then you’re out. Hopefully, that is not what anyone actually wants: feminist philosophers have disagreements all the time, sometimes very strongly argued ones. (One of my old professors used to tell stories about Cisoux and Wittig that make these threads sound like high tea.) How could you encourage the right kinds of disagreements? Perhaps by insisting that comments be nice and engage arguments, which is exactly what every deleted comment actually did.

        I think it’s generally bad to try to moderate by guessing whether any given comment is sufficiently allegiant to the spirit of the blog, because it’s subject to a bunch of predictable pitfalls concerning the health and diversity of the ensuing comment pool such as swallerstein brings up. But
        failing that, the least one can do is be upfront about what one is doing. If the rule is: we’ll delete your comment if we don’t like it, just announce that that’s the rule instead of letting people figure it out the hard way. It is plainly underhanded to delete comments that conform to policy (even by other moderators’ own lights) while breaking one’s own rules, e.g. by insulting people. That’s rude to the commenters who get deleted, self-degrading to the moderator, and toxic to the comment culture.

      • John Protevi says:

        The biggest disconnect here is that I’m offering a non-normative explanation — why you were put in moderation — and you’re countering with a normative argument — it was wrong for you to be put in moderation.

        Beyond that, just a few precisions:

        1) the SYG law may or may not have become central to discussion of the Martin case in the US media, but it was not central to Guenther’s post, which is what FP linked to, and what the moderator at FP wanted to focus upon. Continuing to focus on that minor point after warnings from the moderator, is what got you into trouble there.

        2) you weren’t banned, you were put in moderation.

        3) Nemo’s comments weren’t deleted because the moderator “disagreed” with them; they were deleted because

        a) they were (or at least one was) a huge cut-and-paste from the law, and many blogs think such cut-and-pastes are obnoxious ways for commenters to dominate threads; (it seems his comment 25 has been restored)

        b) they were continuing on the SYG line, which was a minor point of Guenther’s post, the other points of which the moderator wanted the FP thread to focus on.

        4) you weren’t put in moderation w/o warning; 27, 33, and 41 were direct and clear attempts to keep the focus on Guenther’s main points and to take SYG discussions elsewhere.

        Anyway, this whole exchange illustrates my point: you’re trying to win an argument with me rather than work with me to see where I’m coming from and where we might team up.

        Again, and I really acknowledge this is a very deep element in a large part of contemporary philosophical culture (for all I know there’s a straight line back to the agonistic culture of the Greeks), you’re trying to set up a joust between you and me, while I’m trying to work with you to clarify my own thoughts and see if you can see where I’m coming from w/r/t not only this incident, but the difference between philosophy blogs as collective enterprises and seminar room individualist jousting.

  5. synapseandsyntax says:

    Your descriptive account may be on the money as to why I was put in moderation. Whether it is more plausible than my account (to wit: because I criticized the practice of deleting comments that a moderator disagreed with) is a matter that only the moderators can judge. In truth, it’s not clear how different those two accounts really are when you spell them out: it seems to me that (a) `preferring collective efforts to contrarian displays’ is just a nice way of saying (b) `discouraging dissent from the moderators’ consensus’. At least, if I thought some opinion about the blog that could be expressed as (a), but was distinct from (b), I would be at pains to explain what I meant by (a) so that it wasn’t mistaken as euphemism for (b), especially when the other party to the discussion suspects with dismay that (b) is true. I apologize if you find that style of writing distasteful or bloodless; I am really only trying to be clear and encourage some kind of shared understanding here.

    And I should say again that my being put on probation is not what sparked this. I despair of referring to the comments by number anymore, since various comments have been cut out or pasted back in so many times*, but I told Anne that I was leaving immediately after the first round of deleted comments (which did not include any of mine) in the note that concludes with “Take care and be well.” (Perhaps that announcement was not as clear as it could have been. I tried to weigh frankness in the balance with politeness and inflammatory potential.) Subsequent comments of mine were replies to Anne that take issue with her mis- or non-characterizations of what I had written. I was probably mistaken have risen to further bait after first expressing my intention to see myself out.

    Hope you don’t mind if I address the rest in the same format:

    1) There are a few separate questions here. The first is “how much discussion of the law is called for?” Presumably that’s a function of something like the objective importance of the law, i.e. its relevance to the case and the likelihood of it being changed, and also its prominence in the original post. I fear that by leaning for sole support on the fact that the law was one point among many in the original post, you’re arguing for licensing practically any moderation, since every discussion of anything tends to focus on certain points of contention. In fact, every comment in that thread runs afoul of discussing some points to the exclusion of others. I’ve run this objection before, and if you don’t want to get into it that’s ok, but I think the argument proves too much. In point of fact, though, no warnings were issued before comments started getting deleted. That’s what prompted me to leave.

    2) I announced that I was leaving before I was put in the penalty box, in what is now #30. So I’m not that worried about my status over there per se. I’m more disappointed about what actions like those do to the atmosphere at that site, given its prominence. Putting that aside, I’m afraid there’s not much difference between being banned, and being put on moderation when one’s comments are never approved. (This is what happened to my final answer to Anne, in which I observed that it is Not Nice to insinuate that other people suffer mental disabilities.) This is (or was? The comment revisionism is becoming a serious hindrance…) the apparent fate of commenter Lois as well. It supposedly already happened to Nemo, which is curious because it would imply that comments that had been approved by one moderator were subsequently deleted by another. It’s all a big mess that I find more depressing than intriguing.


    a) I agree that copypastaing a long quote can be a little infelicitous. I note this in (as of current) #30 that it’s within moderator discretion. There’s a difference, though, between reformatting it as a link or asking the submitter to do the same and repost, and deleting it along with others.

    b) The warnings, in fact, followed the deletions.

    4) The first round of deletions (which, again, were unannounced) were the final straw for me; the fact that I got banned de facto (see (2)) for making my objections clear as I was leaving is just icing.

    Ultimately, though, I’m not too worked up about the first-order specifics of how that episode went. I did want to hold out the possibility that I was in the wrong, but I think our conversation has managed to establish that whatever differences exist between myself and the moderators are very deep, perhaps even inarticulable (?), and at any rate go well beyond the formal comment policy.

    Looking back through the archives, it’s plain that this isn’t the first such episode. There appears to be a kind of eternal recurrence in which various commenters find that, for secret reasons, their presence is non grata, and either pull out or are pushed out. Whether that’s what the moderators really want to encourage, or whether it’s an unintended emergence from many small decisions, is up to them to figure out. Judging from Jender’s final comment, which draws a merciful curtain over the carnage, I’m glad to see that they’re trying to do so.

    • John Protevi says:

      This has about run its course, but a few points.

      First, if you want me to shift to a normative mode, the of course the moderators has the right to moderate. It’s their blog and their judgment as to what is the appropriate focus and what isn’t. The internet is a big place, and as the FP moderator said, you can always go start a blog and attract traffic. It’s something like this: running a blog is a lot of work, and the blog operator has no obligation to let their hard work in attracting a readership over time be used for purposes they don’t like.

      Secondly, as I argue here in a parallel case, there’s a pattern on the internet that whenever feminist cases are discussed there is an inflow of comments seeking nit-picky little points that distract from the main issues (as judged by the blog operator, of course): http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/02/in-defense-of-snark-or-breaking-down-the-walls-of-the-universal-seminar-room.html In this post I’m talking about the use of snark to fight this kind of thing, but it’s easy enough to make the analogy with moderating.

      Thirdly, Nemo is a master at focusing attention on a small point so that the big picture is lost. He has done that on innumerable occasions on FP, and you have followed his lead, unfortunately. So if you really want to contribute in a positive way to FP — or any other blog for that matter — don’t act like that.

      Fourthly, to use blog jargon, you flounced, and then returned to take up a meta-argument about moderation. So of course the moderator thought you were a troll, because the Flounce-and-Return-to-Argue-the-Thread-Not-the-Issue is a classic troll tactic. So if you don’t want to be considered a troll, you should stop doing that.

      This is probably more aggressive than it need be, but I hope you’ll see what I’m after.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: