ICR hits a snag

| 264 Comments

Via Phil Plait

The Institute for Creation Research, which in 2007 moved from California to Texas, has been seeking accreditation in Texas to award a Master’s degree in science education. In 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board denied ICR’s request for accreditation, and ICR brought federal suit. The National Center for Science Education now reports that ICR’s request to temporarily award the degree while seeking permanent accreditation has been turned down by the court.

ICR’s graduate school is currently accredited by TRACS, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, which IIRC was originally founded by a group including Henry Morris, also the founder of ICR, to provide a cloak of faux respectability for institutions like ICR. As NCSE notes, TRACS

… requires candidate institutions to affirm a list of Biblical Foundations, including “the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God’s image.”

See here for more (pdf), especially pp20ff on “Biblical Foundations”. TRACS is not recognized by Texas as an accrediting agency.

In the ruling denying ICR temporary permission to award the degree, the court wrote

“It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information” (p. 12).

Kind of like most of their stuff, hm? It puts me in mind of R. Kelly Hamilton’s style in the Freshwater hearing: Toss everything into the pot and hope that something is edible.

264 Comments

Loyalty to a co-religionist so strong that they ignore gross incompetence. It takes my breath away…though out of horror or laughter (or both), I’m not sure.

I just hope they don’t pick their pediatricians the way they pick their lawyers.

Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to award science degrees! That would be fraud! Creationism is pseudoscientific dogma associated with religion.

“Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.”

Judges seem usually inclined to exact and neutral language. In this case, however, one gets the clear impression that the court was annoyed.

Sigh, when people spend all their time talking baloney, they find it difficult to say anything else – even when when it’s in their own best interests to STOP.

Here’s another good quote (p31, discussing whether the rejection creates a burden on ICR’s free exercise of religion):

“Because ICRGS alternates between arguing it is merely teaching science and arguing its program is compelled by its religious beliefs, the Court is at a loss to determine what portion of ICRGS’s behavior should be considered motivated by its religious beliefs.”

They don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between a court and a congregation. Or maybe they consider everyone to be part of the congregation. But at least the court is getting a clue about how the “science” program is conducted.

eric said:

Here’s another good quote …

LOL! Loosely translated: “WTF?!”

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

“ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

eric said:

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

“ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Feel free–it’s all … erm … educational. :)

“It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information” (p. 12)

Ouch! I’ll say.

80 pages of incoherent drivel.

I had to download it twice. It was so bad that the first time through my Acrobat reader actually choked up and died on it!

eric said:

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

“ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Wasn’t this type of thing in Sagan’s baloney detection kit?

Continuing MrG’s thought, this has the earmarks of something one person wrote late at night by himself and submitted to the court without having anyone else proofread it. Couldn’t he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, “You know, I’m just not sure what you’re complaining about here.”

Or maybe groups like this are so insular and counterculture that they are unaware of how backward and illiterate they appear to the rest of the world.

This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

RBH said: Feel free–it’s all … erm … educational. :)

Sadly there’s only 39 pages (and the last is the signature page). There’s a couple other, more legalese slaps in there for the intrepid reader, but those three are the ones that stand out as ‘wow, what did they do to make the judge actually say that’ comments.

fasteddie said: Couldn’t he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, “You know, I’m just not sure what you’re complaining about here.”

Maybe the fundamentalists are bravely doing their bit to support the Texas economy in the recession. I mean, they’re clearly creating many subcontractor and consultant opportunities for regular lawyers to work for them to do the actual lawyering.

Its like a pass-through, so good honest christians in need of legal help don’t have to hire those people directly (you know who you are, you Berkeley-educated liberal non-baptist baby eating different-accent speakin’ yankees).

See, it’s only the high schools in Texas that deal with stupid government management. The colleges (and Higher Ed Coordinating Board) are much better…

unfortunately, we have to recruit all our college students from out of state… and the professors… sigh.

Flint said:

They don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between a court and a congregation. Or maybe they consider everyone to be part of the congregation.

Yes Flint, you hit the nail on the head. “Preaching the Gospel” is the be-all and end-all even if it results in legal or political failure. In fact, if it does they chalk it up to “persecution” which will endear the “victims” of said persecution much more strongly to their base which will do good things for them when the collection plate is passed.

fasteddie said:

eric said:

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

“ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Wasn’t this type of thing in Sagan’s baloney detection kit?

Continuing MrG’s thought, this has the earmarks of something one person wrote late at night by himself and submitted to the court without having anyone else proofread it. Couldn’t he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, “You know, I’m just not sure what you’re complaining about here.”

Or maybe groups like this are so insular and counterculture that they are unaware of how backward and illiterate they appear to the rest of the world.

This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

Andrew Stallard said:

Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

Heh. You beat me to it. The Mind Of The Bible-Believer is thick, small print, heavily footnoted, but the analyses are generally spot-on.

MrG said:

“Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.”

Judges seem usually inclined to exact and neutral language. In this case, however, one gets the clear impression that the court was annoyed.

Let’s not be hasty–the judge might simply have chosen to describe the overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and irrelevancy-filled complaint in exact and neutral language

Andrew Stallard said:

Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

What would you recommend if you were under twenty years old, Andrew? ;-}

Maybe our much-reviled, but too-dense-to-get-it, and therefore indefatigable R. Byers helped them with the difficult and precise legal language.

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

“ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Sounds like Duane Gish is on the legal team.

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Don’t apologize on my account. I have no intention on wading through those 80 or so pages and appreciate the sweet tidbits being carved out for me.

Cubist said:

Let’s not be hasty–the judge might simply have chosen to describe the overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and irrelevancy-filled complaint in exact and neutral language

Yeah, maybe I’m reading too much into it. But I still get this strange impression that the judge was annoyed.

Just Bob said:

Maybe our much-reviled, but too-dense-to-get-it, and therefore indefatigable R. Byers helped them with the difficult and precise legal language.

Well, if they have that kind of expertise there’s no sense in not making use of it, right? Sort of along the lines of Terry Pratchett’s “Bloody Stupid Johnson”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody[…]upid_Johnson

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has an excellent analysis of the wider meaning of this decision.

RBH said:

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has an excellent analysis of the wider meaning of this decision.

I am honored that you mentioned my humble blog.

MrG said:

“Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.”

Judges seem usually inclined to exact and neutral language. In this case, however, one gets the clear impression that the court was annoyed.

Sigh, when people spend all their time talking baloney, they find it difficult to say anything else – even when when it’s in their own best interests to STOP.

The judge indicates that there were two request to submit an improved plead. Apparently it is three strikes and you are out. Three chances to submit something reasonable seems to be about all you can expect to get.

The ICR’s document is a very amusing ~80 pages of BS layered with more BS. It really was of the same general style as creationist’s crap on internet BBs. Then reading the Judge’s ~36 page document, it is clear that he was not amused at all.

Thanks for the links.

I am not embarrassed to admit I had to look up “maundering!”

eric said:

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

“ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Wait, isn’t that Casey Luskin’s and the Dishonesty Institute’s M.O?

fnxtr said:

Andrew Stallard said:

Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

What would you recommend if you were under twenty years old, Andrew? ;-}

LOL!

Believe it or not, I actually work as an English teacher!

Ted Herrlich thinks Louisiana may be a good next stop for ICR (sorry, Barbara Forrest!), and the Texas Freedom Network has good words.

KL said:

Bear with me here, Stanton. It would be interesting to know in more detail, even at the secondary school level. (Sorry, it’s the educator in me) So how about it, IBIG?

Certainly, I’m interested to see what excuse IBelieve has for believing himself to be smarter than Einstein.

I wouldn’t hold my breath in getting an answer:

KL said:

Bear with me here, Stanton. It would be interesting to know in more detail, even at the secondary school level. (Sorry, it’s the educator in me) So how about it, IBIG?

Especially when he is so pretentious enough that he wishes to be known as the “sole” source of “divine” wisdom.

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

darvolution proponentsist said: Snake + Fruit + Fall = Rebellion

All Science So Far !

To clarify, this is a simplified version of what I’ve been told a few times. The Original Sin™, resulting in what I call the Original Grudge™, was a rebellion against Yahweh. Apparently we all have this rebellious nature built-in because we are all of us descendants of Adam and Eve.

Over the years I’ve come to think that perhaps the Genesis myth began largely as a coming of age metaphor constructed to control. When we are newborn, what one might call our most “innocent” age in life, we are all of us coddled, protected, and have every need provided for us as though we are in an “eden”. It’s a time of life when we are allowed to occasionally run around naked blissfully unaware of sexuality. In today’s context pictures of bath time in the tub or sink, and it’s “cute” rather than put into a sexual context. But those days are soon to come, puberty is on it’s way eventually, that “rebellious” stage in life that coincides with the coming of sexuality and quite often rebellion against the very social group you are a part of.

When I think back on how the populations lived that might have really originated the Genesis myth, I see a time when pregnancy while a necessary aspect of life could also be potentially very detrimental. Death during childbirth was a very real threat, I would imagine more so for the recently pubescent. Moving into the later term of the pregnancy the expectant mother shifts from being an able participant helping to meet the needs of the social group to one that is more of a burden that will continue after childbirth with the mother requiring recovery time and the newborn tender care. Now there are two mouths to feed and two that aren’t helping to hunt/gather/etc. This can also can be an impediment to groups that are nomadic in nature. (at an extreme, consider Scientology and the huge pressure they put upon the young women working in the “orgs” to abort because it affects the profitability of the cult) I’d think the last thing they would want, or perhaps need, is the leaving the pubescent to explore sexuality unchecked and becoming knocked up at a time when kids are becoming more useful to the group and less a dependant.

Let’s not forget, we are a special creation and not dirty animals so I guess we’re not supposed to be banging away like Bonobos all over the place either. Throw in the whole “suddenly nude sexual awareness fig leaf” thing, the phallic symbol of the snake who kick-starts it all by snuggling up to Eve, an origin “oh btw, here’s what you get for screwing around” story for childbirth pain, and the picture I began with above is what I start to see. (don’t be like A&E, homey Yahweh don’t play that way and you have “eden” to lose just like they did) A story like this might be seen as necessary to hang over the heads of children, and others, helping to control natural urges. Fear and shame are of course very handy and effective tools.

Sorry for rambling and hope it was somewhat coherent. This is the first I’ve ever shared of these thoughts.

Well, we’re not getting an answer.

Let me explain something to you IBIG, while you are formulating the answer to my inquiry: Science involves collaboration. No one can “know” everything, so scientists must communicate with each other. If I was curious about the features of a fossil, say, of Eocene apes, I would talk with the people who have the most experience in working with these fossils. The features are subtle and take years of mileage in the lab and field to evaluate. If a new fossil ape is found, the opinions of those people most experienced carry the most weight.

This is not to say that laypeople (like myself) can’t learn more about Eocene apes. But the opinion of someone like me is meaningless in the scientific discussion.

Multiply that little example by all the areas of science. I must follow the conclusions of scientists who work in the various sciences because I don’t have the background to make these judgments myself. The one thing I have that many people (and possibly you) may not have is an understanding of how science is done. I also am not tied to a Biblical explanation for how things came to be, therefore I am open to learn.

The fact is there is TONS of evidence for evolution, and absolutely nothing out there that falsifies evolution. When folks like you say that there is nothing out there, you are dismissing the work of countless scientists. My spouse’s work is directly connected to evolution (primate behavior).

So, IBIG, open your mind. READ. There are dozens of books out there that are written for you and me. None of them will ask you to give up your belief in God. However, they will show you enough evidence for you to let go of special creation as written in Genesis. It will not diminish your Christianity, I promise.

John Vanko said: Maybe IBIG works at AIG.

IBIG is probably one of Billy Dembski’s students at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who are assigned to “provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites.” - see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]_our_tro.php

Frank J said:

hoary puccoon said:

I definitely second the recommendation to read Richard Dawkin’s “The Greatest Show on Earth.” He sets out the basic arguments for evolution in a clear, not-too-technical way. If IBelieveInGod (or any creationist lurkers) will read that and come back with specific questions, maybe this discussion can go somewhere.

You do realize that any pro-science book, especially one wtitten by an admitted atheist, would only give these trolls more quotes to mine.

He’s welcome to try, but Dr Dawkins was extremely careful to avoid giving easy quotemine material in his book (has been for decades).

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

Why is it dumber? I’m just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

Why is it dumber? I’m just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

I already answered your moronic canard, idiot.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

Why is it dumber? I’m just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

I already answered your moronic canard, idiot.

I was not responding to you, this was a response to the post by Dale Husband.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

Why is it dumber? I’m just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

Why do you whine about us being hostile to you when you ask stupid questions with the intent to deliberately ignore any answers given to you?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

Why is it dumber? I’m just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

I already answered your moronic canard, idiot.

I was not responding to you, this was a response to the post by Dale Husband.

And I was stating that your moronic question was answered, i.e., life as we know it is carbon-based because carbon forms and breaks bonds more easily than other similar elements like silicon. That, and Dale is pointing out how you ask really stupid questions with absolutely no intention of listening to any answers given, especially since the answers are actually very easy to find to begin with.

If you have a problem with people answering your stupid questions that you have no intention of having answered, why don’t you just go away?

I have been polite, and asked a simple background question (and explained my rationale for asking it) and you have ignored it. My guess is that you are only here to cause trouble.

I conclude that Stanton was right. To the Bathroom Wall with IBIG.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that’s even dumber than the “If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?” canard!

My favorite comeback is “If America was settled by Europeans, then why are there still people in Europe?”

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

At any rate, this is evidence FOR common ancestry.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of cellular life, it describes the subsequent evolution of cellular life and post-cellular self-replicators such as viruses.

One of the obvious pieces of evidence of common ancestry, to the reasonable and unbiased mind, is the common biochemistry, including a common genetic code, across life.

Needless to say, magical design by Jesus and the FSM teaming up to ride on a pink unicorn and do everything by magic cannot be ruled out, since they could have just magically made it look like evolution to fool everybody (*this parody is not intended to mock sincere religious belief, but rather, to mock science denial, regardless of its motivation*).

However, we could hardly argue for common descent if different species had completely different biochemistry, could we?

Creationists are good at telling us that they have something positive to offer, but somehow or other they never get around to telling us what that is.

Just to take one example: What would it look like if we were to see a creation/design of a species/kind/whatever taking place? What sort of world is it before that happens, and how is it different after that happens? What did the prior uncreated/undesigned things look like? How did they survive? Where did the uncreated/undesigned things come from? What happened to them when the created/designed things showed up?

IBelieveInGod said:

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

Actually, that’s not quite the right question, IBIG.

There are only carbon-based life forms on earth because at earthly temperatures and pressures carbon is abundant and naturally forms lots of compounds that have a good balance of reactivity and stability. Neither silicon or nitrogen, two “alternate candidates”, don’t do this under typically earthly conditions.

Complaining that there aren’t life forms based on nitrogen or silicon on earth is like asking why there is never rain made of nitrogen or aluminum. After all, both have liquid phases are plentiful in the environment, so what’s the problem?

The correct question IBIG, is, if evolution is true, then why is there only one type of carbon-based life form on earth?

If abiogenisis is indeed possible, one might expect it to have happened more than once, right? And if it did, the odds of it happening twice the same way is near zero, right?

Oh… Wait… maybe there actually is evidence that something like this happened. There’s actually a lot of evidence that mitochondria, with their own, separate, RNA system, are actually the relic of a second abiogenesis event.

Of course, that was then, this is now. Abiogenesis is dependent on the involved molecules having time, space and opportunity to interact and recombine. Back in the early days, when Earth was mostly lifeless, this was not an issue.

Once the first cellular life took hold and started to spread the opportunity for a new abiogenesis system to get a toe-hold int he environment disappeared as the definition of free-floating amino acids changed from “precursor chemicals” to “food”.

While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

RBH said:

While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

It appears so.

RBH said:

While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

Given as how IBelieveInGod does not appear to be interested in explaining how pointing and saying GODDIDIT is supposed to be scientific, does not appear to be interested in explaining his background truthfully, nor does he appear to be interested in answering any of the questions harold or stevaroni or others have posed to him, yes, please put this thread out of its misery.

IBelieveInGod said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

I never said scientific law of cause and effect in my question, I said law of cause and effect. It doesn’t really have it’s origins in creationist literature either, google it and you will see that you are wrong. My real question though was do you believe in cause and effect!

Since we are on a pro-science web-site, it is reasonable to infer that you are referring to a scientific law of cause and effect when you refer to a law of cause and effect. What other type of law could you be referring to? So you are just being disingenuous once again.

Also, I was not referring to the actual origins of the phrase “cause and effect”. What I was referring to was how John Vanko had pointed out the origins of its use in creationist literature, which you would understand if you understood anything you read.

Finally, your real questions keep changing as soon as somebody points out something you don’t like about them. If “cause and effect” isn’t used in a scientific context, then it is pointless to discuss it in regards to evolution. It’s really amazing that you don’t realize your gotcha tactics won’t work here.

IBelieveInGod said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

Let me also point out that I didn’t misrepresent what John said, I just asked some questions to see what he does believe, so when did asking questions become misrepresenting what someone says.

When did you stop selling heroin to grade-school children, IBIG? Sorry – I meant to say “a question that’s based on a false or invalid premise can easily be a misrepresentation of accusation…”

RBH said:

While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

AFAIWC, it ran its course yesterday.

I was tempted to post when I saw that “carbon” business. “Oh man that’s on a league with PYGMIES + DWARVES!”

So be it. Thanks for playing, everyone!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on June 23, 2010 12:40 PM.

Freshwater: Hearing testimony ends! was the previous entry in this blog.

Freshwater: Verrrry interesting is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter