Category: cheap beer lyrics Uncategorized

Skepticism – a rose by any other name? Divisions and semantics

September 22, 2012

 ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

– William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

The blog comment that became a blog of its own

Apologies to those who this will be dull to – if you don’t identify as a skeptic/don’t know about Skeptics in the Pub (SitP) but want to, go here

Divisions

Divisions

Divisions in the community – long, protracted, complicated, often dull ones!

There’s been quite a lot of conversation recently in the ‘community’ (oh and arguments about if we’re even a community!) about skepticism and sexism, but now we have a new thing to argue about – whether we identify as skeptics or not and, if we do, what should we call ourselves? Nelson Jones, in the UK Skeptic Magazine this issue recently mused about it, saying:

Another prominent skeptic and founder/convenor of Westminster Skeptics, David Allen Green, recently decided to remove ‘skeptic’ from his self-identified label set. As have a few friends of mine. I’ll keep my personal opinions of these decisions out of this post.

Yesterday I read an excellent post by my friend Simon Clare, who runs Horsham Skeptics in the Pub. This was sparked by a discussion on Facebook with other SitP organisers about whether skepticism – the very word itself, puts people off. I, of course, am skeptical as to whether it is the actual word that puts people off – I am waiting for more evidence.

 

You can read the post here – it’s worth reading, at this juncture, as it’s likely the rest won’t make much sense without having read it, plus it’s very thought-provoking:

“It sounds like heresy but I think it is time to consider adopting other names for Skeptics in the Pub groups.” – Simon Clare

 I’ve got a few thoughts and comments about Simon’s thoughts on a re-brand,  but no real answers!

“We share one common goal” says Simon. As Tim McGregor (Brighton Skeptics in the Pub) says in Simon’s blog comments, I don’t think we do. I think it would be useful to collate organisers’ reasons for running a Skeptics in the Pub. Tim’s much more about the Skeptic community and I see why – it makes perfect sense –  and there e use of a different gelling agent. are other opportunities for outreach. However, I am probably more aligned with Simon when it comes to what I feel I run Guildford SitP for.

Maybe a survey would be interesting – why does anyone run a SitP? Also, a survey of the general public would give us a good idea of whether we are right or wrong as to what people we’ve never met think – we have a self-selecting and experimenter-selecting bias in our Facebook & Twitter friends. 

So why do I run Guildford Skeptics in the Pub?

(a) So I can put on speakers I admire – this is an opportunity for me to meet them, so that’s my selfish reason.

(b) So I can put on an event for like-minded people- I get a lot from people telling me they enjoy it and I like being part of the ‘SitP organisers’ – it’s nice for me, on a basic human level, to feel aligned with a community and ties into Tim’s comments.

(c) For outreach to people who don’t normally think about skepticism – to introduce them to the idea of critical thinking and give them a good night out where they learn something and have had their minds stretched. I personally feel cheated if I learn nothing new at a SitP event. I don’t see the point of hearing the same old stuff every month.

(d) To let other people also do (a)

Re-brand/not options, as I see them

So, as I see it, this is about marketing/advertising to new people – introducing them to skepticism by another name. This won’t be for every organiser, but I still think it’s a good question and one worth exploring. I may ask my Guildford audience if they identify as a skeptic/what they think it means. This could be compared to the general audience, too.

(1) try to reclaim the word and educate people as to its meaning, as we see it. That way we are still aligning with the core values of SitP (more on why this is important, below).

(2) Rename it, on a local level and educate people as to the meaning of the new name. This could be very hard or very easy depending on the name. I’m not keen on the idea of a completely new word – portmanteau, bacronym, verbing a noun, whatever you choose.

(3) Rename it, on a local level and still affiliate whatever the new name is (say, Interesting Talks, for the sake of argument) to Skeptics in the Pub: ‘Horsham’s Interesting Talks, in association with Skeptics in the Pub’.

As my mum, an ex-magazine journo, pointed out, by changing the name you may lose some attendees. Any new title that gets taken over will always retain the old name, in smaller font, just for enough time so that your old, loyal audience, get used to it. Also it’s good to retain it long enough so that there’s no indication that you’ve changed values or direction.

(4) Still introduce skepticism to outsiders by doing some variation on (3), by headlining Skeptics in the Pub, with your alternative name as a small header/strapline – affiliate yourself with SitP still but your advertising focuses on the nature of the talks.

Using Skeptic instead of Sceptic is only effective to those ‘in the know’

No! Pointy beards are better than short, curly ones!

No! Pointy beards are better than short, curly ones!

To the average dude in the street, I think there are 3 possibilities –  they

(i) don’t know, notice or care about the difference
(ii) think it’s the American spelling/ you’ve misspelled it
(iii) already know, so are not part of the new audience you’re trying to attract

Nelson Jones has a good article in The Skeptic Magazine (quick plug, as I’ve just been made Assistant Editor) talking about S(k/c)eptic. Worth a read (£15 for a year’s subscription!)
My personal choice is to go along with suggestion (1 – try to reclaim the word and educate people as to its meaning), above. I think you may end up spending either more time explaining the new term and just eventually equating it with skepticism as a short hand and then doing suggestion (1) anyway or you may have a small chance of having people misunderstand your new term as well!
Some questions – why should you have to ask anyone? SitP is, as far as I can tell, policed by no-one but the people who run each night. We are loaned the SitP email facilities and website stuff, but I can’t see that, other than removing a group from the website and maps provided on each other localised SitP website, they could prevent anyone doing anything. I think it’s unlikely. Who would anyone ask, anyway? You would still be (X location’s) local SitP, as that’s what you do, you just call yourself something different.
“But those groups whom we are working against have gigantic budgets and armies of brainwashed volunteers slaving away on their behalf. I am referring of course to the cults, the religions, the anti-vaxxers and the rest. They can use the internet too, and right now, they are winning at it”
“We are up against far better equipped forces and if we are to make greater progress then we must pull out all the stops. We can’t afford to cling to things that hold us back, just on a point of flimsy principle. The word “Skeptic” holds us back. It gets in the way of promoting skepticism and scepticism. It gives people an excuse to ignore us.” (- Simon Clare)
Crucially, what’s being overlooked is that these groups are united in their aims and backed by the vociferous, the grieving, the brainwashed, the greedy (some CAM proponents/psychics), the deluded, the ones backed by the wealth of organised religon… I could go on. I think we’re doing so well with the amount of SitP groups – which are building communities – loose ones – communities that grow by the day and learn to organise themselves into larger, focused, activist-type groups. I think we should celebrate and build on this- not be disheartened. I don’t think it’s unrealistic to say this generation of skeptics won’t completely overrule irrational thinking. 

Finally, I think it could work in Horsham. Give it a go Simon. Experiment. We’ll do a controlled study – skepticism in beautiful action! We can present the results and see where they take us.

In which I dispute the idea I am a shill for an industry I no longer work for

August 1, 2012

Tomorrow evening I will be talking to Royal Tunbridge Wells Skeptics on the topic of Autism treatments. My talk briefly focuses on a treatment that I term as ‘good’, rather than ‘bad’ or ‘ugly’.

Update: added definition of ABA, after suggestion in comments.

This treatment is Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA). It is described by Wikipedia as:

“ a psychological approach that uses the theory of behaviorism to modify human behaviors as part of a learning or treatment process. Behavior analysts focus on the observable relationship of behavior to the environment to the exclusion of what they call “hypothetical constructs”.[1] By functionally assessing the relationship between a targeted behavior and the environment, the methods of ABA can be used to change that behavior. Research in applied behavior analysis ranges from behavioral intervention methods to basic research which investigates the rules by which humans adapt and maintain behavior.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis

I have been accused of being a shill for ABA and aspersions have been cast over the impartiality of host Tom Bruce and his relationship with me. These have come from a member of the group who has taken exception to my talk being put on. I do not have a problem with healthy debate and questioning, but I do have a problem with what an administrator of the page has (in my opinion) quite rightly described as ‘uniformed conjecture’. Bear in mind that none of the Tunbridge Wells Skeptics (including the hosts) have seen my talk yet – they have simply read the talk summary (linked at the end of the post).

The specific, baseless accusations about my motives can be found here (Facebook). I do not post the link to encourage anyone to fight my battles for me, just for some context.

I would like to say here, so it is on record, that I am not an ABA tutor. I made it clear in my talk descriptions that I am a former ABA tutor. I last worked as a tutor for 8 months in 2010. Before that, for a year or so in 2004 whilst at university.

I currently work as a proofreader, writer and editor as well as a day job for an insurance company while I save to further my education. Education in science, in case you wish to know.

The topic of Autism is one that has fascinated me since I was young and learned about it a little at Reigate college in 2001-2003. I then saw a posting for an ABA tutor at uni one day and, as I was studying behaviourism as part of a BSc in Psychology, I jumped at the chance to see it work in practice and make a worthwhile contribution to someone’s life. I stand by that decision as I know that the child benefited immensely from the coaching that I and others provided. However, I am not saying that it will work for every child nor that it is right for every family.

When I worked as a tutor I was coached by UKYAP and PEACH. I did not work directly for them, but for families. I was paid £10 an hour. This was about the going rate. I was part-time. in 2010 I was paid £12 an hour. Again, the going rate.

To accuse me of being a shill for ABA and to create other strawman (e.g. I am going around the country selling ABA whilst denigrating other treatments) is a complete lie.

Those who have actually seen my talk will know that ABA is tacked on to the end of my talk: I am primarily concerned with the harm of treatments with no evidence base. I am not interested in selling anything, nor do I need to. ABA stands upon its own evidence. Google has a wide selection of information on the topic.

I am solely concerned with raising awareness of quacks who seek to gain from treatments that cause harm. This is approximately more than 50% of my talk.

I also wish to make it clear that I will never and never have discredited parents and carers who have worked to make their children’s lives better – whatever treatment they choose. I understand (and talk about) the reasons that people choose the treatments they do. I believe that parents of autistic children have a hard enough job already and I do not seek to make it harder.

My sole aim is to let people know how to look out for harmful treatments and examine the evidence.

I will not tolerate lies about my motives. Skeptics in the Pub speakers (in my experience as a speaker and host of Guildford Skeptics) are never paid for their talks: they receive expenses only. I estimate that I have spent around 30 hours researching and putting together my talk. But not to gain from it financially. The topic of Autism is under constant research and I do my best to stay abreast of the latest evidence and scientific research.

I have also never posited myself as an ‘expert’ on the subject of Autism. When a speaker didn’t show for a talk at my Skeptics in the Pub group I decided I should make one myself. Autism has been a hot topic since the MMR hoax and I thought I should lend my experience in ABA to a talk focusing on bad treatments. Don’t criticise if you can’t provide a better solution, was what I was always told.

I’ll leave you with a definition of skepticism that I and some friends have worked on – the one I adhere to:

“Skepticism” is the practice of

  • critically evaluating claims against the available evidence
  • suspending judgement until there is sufficient evidence (my emphasis)
  • when the balance of evidence indicates that the claim should be held as valid, provisionally accepting it as true until such time as further evidence demonstrates it to be otherwise.

This sequence of doubt, inquiry and provisional acceptance is a method, not a position. Application of this method is more likely to determine what is true, or at least arrive at answers that are as close to the truth as currently possible. 

Crucially, all conclusions remain modifiable in the light of new evidence, but the more a particular claim flies in the face of our current understanding, the greater the weight of evidence is required to accept the claim. 

The practice of skepticism often includes reference to “bias”; biases are tendencies that we all have toward certain types of belief, or certain ways of thinking that are contrary to logic. Skeptics strive to identify and overcome these biases where possible.

“…the aim of rational debate is not for us to win, but for the truth to win” – Julian Baggini

Skeptics often refer to “Logical Fallacies” (although they are often referring to informal fallacies). A fallacy is a form of argument that is invalid because its conclusions do not follow from its premise, or it is a diversionary tactic away from the actual issue at hand. Skeptics aim to argue without resort to fallacy, and to counter fallacies in others’ arguments, as they indicate poor reasoning.

 

If you want to know more about my talk tomorrow, here is the information:

http://tunbridgewells.skepticsinthepub.org/Event.aspx/1136/Autism-Treatments–the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly

 

America: resuscitating the English language since 1620

May 15, 2012
Lynne Murphy

Lynne Murphy, Senior Lecturer in Linguistics and English Language at the University of Sussex

“An American teaching English?” she cried. “Surely that’s evidence of a brain drain?” And we were off, with Lynne Murphy’s gentle, self-deprecating humor informing her talk on  ‘How America saved the English language’.

Talking to a packed out room (I think the biggest I’ve ever seen at Horsham), she had a tough crowd of English skeptics (with the odd expat here and there) to convince. As a grammar nerd, former EFL teacher and all round languages fan, this was my kind of talk. There have been several articles over the years about the decline of language and I’d never seen linguistics or grammar approached skeptically before, so I was looking forward to it. But I was skeptical. Obviously. I’m a proofreader and editor and I find ‘Americanisms’ irritating as they creep and seep into the conscious of students sending essays my way. So would Lynne change my mind? I hoped so.

In honor of Lynne’s argument, I have resolved to use American spelling where I can. For the sake of brevity, I’m taking more tips from Lynne and using BrE to signify British English and AmE for American English.

Lynne had come to Horsham Skeptics in the Pub, (noting the ‘K’), to talk to us about the degradation of the English language and whose fault it is. Only she wasn’t arguing that our language was being degraded at all. And even if it were*, it certainly wasn’t Americans who were sullying the Queen’s English. Knowing we were of a skeptical ilk, Lynne made sure she noted this was no straw man argument, quoting English actresses like Penelope Keith and Emma Thompson who used language of the highest emotional, violent and disease-ridden connotations, talking of “SMS vandals” and stating that American English is “savaging and raping” and has “permeated, pervaded and polluted” British English.

Skepticism’s bête noire, Prince Charles, (who is, of course, the Prince of Wales) also got a mention as he has said that only English English is English and lamented “they make words that shouldn’t be”. Anu Garg, an Indian-American author and speaker, bemoaned that the changing English language was “a kind of barbarism”, an idea that many English people may well agree with, despite the hyperbolic association with destruction and violence or primitive and savage behaviours that word conjures.

Other bug bears noted were ‘fess up instead of confess, ‘face up to’ instead of confront and ‘it’s a big ask’, one that caused me some trouble only recently, on Twitter of all places. Of course Twitter is often blamed for the rise in tlkng lke dis in order to save on characters, yet I would have thought that the days of telegraphs, where you had to pay for each word, would have been a prime time to rstrct ur wrd lngth.

So it was, on May 15 (or the 15th of May) that I was convinced that America saved the English language. ‘Face up’ was found from as far back as 1720, where the OED cites Daniel Defoe, the English writer responsible for Robinson Crusoe.

‘It’s a big ask’ is Australian, not American.

‘Might of’ (might have)  is simply the artefact of an over-reliance on pronunciation to aid spelling – it’s illiteracy, not an Americanism.

It’s not just the average British citizen who finds ‘Americanisms’ galling (frequently not Americanisms, but the work of language preservationists, as you’ll see), but Cambridge-educated writers and actors like David Mitchell too, who, it seems, was loath to consult the Oxford English Dictionary when he labored under the misapprehension that tidbit was a censorious reaction to Americans’ bashful feelings for the word ‘tit’. Tidbit is actually the original English. See Lynne’s discussion here for more.

Moving on, we come to maths vs math – the one that still grates on me even though I’ve accepted Lynne’s stance on this.

Maths is not plural, (one mathematics, two mathematics) so why do we put the ‘s’ at the end? We don’t say “maths are hard”. After Dan tweeted the above, I asked him about it and he concluded:

Which of course brings all kinds of problem with what looks like a possessive apostrophe rather than one signifying a contracted form of a word.

How about ‘gotten’, then? That’s one most of us find difficult to swallow? Gotten is actually the older past participle and if we reject ‘gotten’ then we must also forsake ‘forgotten’, ‘ill-begotten’ and ‘misbegotten’.

So we go on to pronunciation…. ‘erbs.

Herb vs ‘erb is one that’s arguably the most commented on and noticeable, yet we’re more than happy not to pronounce the ‘h’ of hour or honest. The reason for the ‘h’ of herb being so obvious now in BrE is because of class pressures. ‘Lower class’ people typically dropped the ‘h’, meaning the ‘upper class’ emphasised it so as to assert their superiority. Much as they do now on the difference between ‘aitch’ and ‘haitch’.

Eggplant is another word that AmE preserves, preferring it to the French, Aubergine. In fact, Lynne argues, the British are not, as you might think, Gallophobic at all. We love French and have taken its language and made it our own. We say shedule for schedule (not skedule like in AmE. The original pronunciation in the 18th C was ‘sedule’). We also take ‘ise’ instead of ‘ize’, for words like humanize and standardize.

Another interesting nugget (there were several) from Lynne’s talk was the word ‘transportation’. BrE speakers often complain that Americans overemphasize  words by lengthening them, yet transportation was the original word. As it became tainted by its connotations with penal transportation, we switched to ‘transport’ to mean general conveyance of people, animals and goods.

Fowler's Modern Language has a lot to answer for

So, does English need saving? Lynne says no: there’s little to no unidirectional evidence that AmE or BrE are invading our respective shores and taking over. But language is living and Lynne puts herself safely in the middle of the prescriptivist vs descriptivist language debate, something that, as an editor  but also a writer, I’m firmly on the fence about myself. As a gatekeeper (whether that’s as an editor or a teacher of English) you must teach the rules and standards of grammar and style, but you must also teach people when style impacts on substance enough that those rules can be bent and even twisted for poetic license.

English has a lot of weird, Kafkaesque rules, many of which are archaic and simply Latin grammar rules  imposed when we standardized.

But would English be where it is today, post-war, where over a billion people speak at least basic English, were it not for America? This is certainly arguable and came up in discussion, but I’m willing to bet people wouldn’t still be learning English centuries after Britain started to resent its arrogant (and now inappropriate) ‘Great’ moniker** and lost power over the colonies if it weren’t for America’s (relatively) new status as a superpower.

There were many things to be skeptical about last night, like natural tribal reactions to language differences, but whether Lynne was right on AmE championing ‘proper English’? I’m sold.

—

*the subjunctive: I like it. I might keep it!

**yes, I know. That’s not the derivation of Great Britain. I was making a point about how we’re not as massive or awesome as we used to be, in terms of power over other countries.

 


Cervical screening and the quest for informed consent

March 20, 2012

Cancer screening – a mini rant that turned into a big one.

I must declare an interest and a bias here. My father’s had prostate cancer (not found through screening, admittedly) and I had surgery to remove pre-cancerous cells on my cervix last year. My very first screening for cervical cancer found dangerous cells that, had I left them, could have meant I went the same way as Jade Goody.

Four days ago, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust released this press release,

Leading national charity calls for urgent action in approach to anniversary as ‘Jade Goody effect’ goes into reverse

Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust is calling for urgent action in the approach to the anniversary of Jade Goody’s death as latest figures show the dramatic surge in numbers taking up a life-saving test she is said to have inspired has not been maintained.

Three years on Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust says the so-called “Jade Goody effect”, when cervical screening rates rose for the first time in a decade, has all but disappeared.

Every three hours a woman in the UK is diagnosed with cervical cancer and every day it claims three lives – yet the disease is preventable. The UK’s NHS cervical screening programmes save around 5,000 lives every year but recent figures show one in five women overall fail to attend with figures worse for those under 35 with one in three not taking up their invitation.

 

So you can imagine my surprise when today I read in the Independent (after a tweet from @mgtmccartney, the writer of the  piece, lead me to it) this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-im-saying-no-to-a-smear-7577967.html

“The NHS persists in sending me red-ink letters despite my written declaration to opt out. I’m made to feel a risk-taker in not having cervical screening – yet I’d also be taking my chances if I had it done.”

I agree with her points – the NHS shouldn’t be sending her letters if she’s decided to opt out. But really, a red ink letter? So what? To defend herself against my accusation of being irresponsible, she said

I think this is over-stating things. We are autonomous beings – a letter penned in red ink can be easily shredded and forgotten about. It might annoy, but for some women, it could save their life. No one is saying you have to have it.

“That potential for good has to be weighed against the risks of treatment. It’s known that having a cervical biopsy – which is done to get more information about the degree of abnormality – raises the risk of pre-term birth in later pregnancies. “

– this is also true. Women should be told the consequences of having a biopsy done and I’d NEVER argue against informed consent. Unfortunately the tweets that were sent out afterwards from the writer, including me, seemed to say that I was opposing women getting the info they need – that’s not true.

“I weighed up my personal risk factors for cervical screening (for example, smoking is a risk factor), threw in my own priorities – and decided not to have it.”

This is fine and dandy – for her. But smoking is not the only risk factor for cervical cancer. (From NHS website):

“Changes in the cells of the cervix are often caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which also causes genital warts. There are more than 100 different types of HPV. Some types are high risk and some types are low risk. HPV-16 and HPV-18 are considered to be high risk for cervical cancer.”

Margaret McCartney goes on –

“Most information sent to us, as potential participants, doesn’t make clear that it’s a personal choice, and a balance of pros and cons.”

– Again, I absolutely agree that information should always be given, but that information should also be balanced with the risks of cervical cancer. I was given lots of information when after the results of my screening came back. In fact, the NHS website says your doctor will discuss this with you:

“If any changes are found, your GP will discuss with you whether to wait and see if the changes go away on their own or whether you need treatment […] In the UK, it is estimated that 8 out of 10 people are infected with HPV at some point during their lifetime. For most people, the virus goes away without treatment and does not cause any harm. […] If your results show abnormal cells, you will be sent for screening every six months to monitor the cells. You will only be given treatment if the cells do not go back to normal. If your results indicate more serious cell changes such as these you will have a colposcopy to investigate further. A colposcopy is a procedure where the surface of the lining of the cervix is closely examined.”

– none of these procedures cause any harm to the cervix. The colposcopy is simply an instrument to have a good look at the cervix. It’s true that a biopsy will sometimes be done during the colposcopy, but you’ll be told about this before it happens.

Many women don’t take up their invitation for cervical screening and I think the reasons they don’t are probably not because of their fears about the health impact. This article, from June 2011, says that up to a fifth of UK women don’t attend their cervical screening test at all.

“About 1,000 women die of cervical cancer in the UK annually.”

“But experts estimate screening saves at least 4,500 lives a year in England alone.”

“The research, released to mark Cervical Screening Awareness Week, appears to suggest that many of those who have missed or delayed appointments for cervical cancer screening are doing so because of inconvenience, embarrassment or worry about taking time off work.”

Encouraging people not to even go (after all, the initial screening test won’t lead to the harm that Margaret McCartney talks about) is, to my mind, irresponsible. There’s no harm in having the information available that might lead to your death. Margaret argues that we should be informed better – I agree and take this to its logical conclusion – we should be informed about the risks of NOT doing anything about the pre-cancerous cells that lurk in our lady parts. After all – if we don’t know they’re there, then we’re not informed at all!

Margaret McCartney provides no evidence that women aren’t being informed about the pros and cons of these procedures – she includes information about those who are given info on a separate test and refuse it – prostate cancer – which is another post entirely – in fact I could write a book about that (with help from my expert mother who strived to learn all she could about my Dad’s cancer and treatment). I was talked all the way through my procedure and gave my informed consent to what might mean I have a difficulty pregnancy or even pre-term birth. Obviously, my experience doesn’t speak for all patients, but there’s little evidence here that women aren’t being informed. But they can’t be informed if they don’t even go!

I agree 100% that information about the risks of a biopsy should be given, but a female doctor writing in a national paper about not even bothering to have the initial information about whether she’d even need further treatment seems to me, irresponsible.

Her very profession puts her in a position of authority – perhaps meaning that women will take her advice as read and not even look into it – it’s a sad fact that people often don’t read a whole article, especially if they’re on their way somewhere or get bored half way through (not a comment on the piece – it’s very well written!). Without seeing the nuance (which there is in the piece) the message is – doctor says not to bother.

As one of the commenters on the article says:

As a doctor you are in a very informed position and can make such decisions with more accuracy, to glibly put that responsibility on people without your training is perhaps optimistic.

It’s yet another excuse for someone who’s frightened, embarrassed or just too busy to have a smear not to bother at all. Now who’s uninformed?

%d bloggers like this: