Saturday, 31 July 2010

Welcome to the Mad Hatter's Tea-party

I have recently observed that many comments made here tend to create an Alice in Wonderland air, completely divorced from the real world and quite impossible for any normal, sane person to follow . This tendency has accelerated over the last week or so until the comments to my posts are starting to read like a transcript of conversations which might have taken place at the Mad Hatter's Tea-party. The day before yesterday I posted a quite unexceptionable piece about Michael Gove, speculating on the possibility that he might introduce compulsory registration of home educators. I expressed no opinion either way and simply set out a few quotations of his which might shed light upon this possibility. I might mention here that Ian Dowty said precisely the same thing recently and feels that home educators would be wise to suggest this for themselves, so the actual content of the post could hardly be considered daring or controversial. What sort of response was there?

Well, to begin with a woman in Shropshire is anxious about the possibility that I might once have written under a pseudonym. She says;

' I thought you had written under an assumed name for The Lady?'

What makes this enquiry utterly surreal is that she signs her own comment with a pseudonym. I last wrote regularly for The Lady in the eighties, so let's see if I have this straight. A person who habitually uses a pseudonym in order to conceal her identity is worried that I might have used a pseudonym myself over twenty years ago. Have I got that right? Am I really alone in finding this a little odd? (I think Ms Gerrard at No. 8 knows who we're talking about here!) This is nothing though compared with another person who is concerned that,

'really very little of substance is known about him.'.

This was written by a person about whom we know considerably less of substance, because she chooses not to reveal her name or even her gender! You might find it pretty rich that she should then complain about knowing very little of substance about somebody who has always used his real name and widely publicised both his personal email address and a good deal of information about his life. This Anonymous is also bothered because I apparently, 'like to hint at things about himself which might lead one astray as a first time reader, then says things along the lines of "whatever makes you think I'm..." (e.g., christian). She seems to be saying here that she does not know enough about my religious convictions. What bearing this might have upon home education remains obscure.

What else have we got? I said that at one time in the sixties the Guardian had a strong libertarian streak and used to support the Liberal party, as indeed it did. An angry person responded;

'Ha ha Ha - do you know what Libertarian means? Clearly not. FYI, The Guardian is probably the most pro-State, pro-collectivist newspaper in the UK. It is the antithesis of Libertarian.'

A bit of a rant followed about this. I have no idea at all what the paper is like these days, I have not read it for over thirty years; I made it clear that I was referring to the past. The comments just get madder and madder. Mind you, the above seem as sensible as a dictionary compared with the person who wondered whether William Whitelaw might have been my father. Fathom that one out if you can!

These people all have one thing in common; they are wholly incapable of discussing any topic in a rational or coherent fashion. Few of the comments had anything to do with Michael Gove or even home education in general; some of them sound as though those making them are confused and not entirely in their right minds.


It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education. I don't say that I agree with this, but I have to say that friends and colleagues of mine who come on here frequently also tell me that some of the people who comment sound a bit loopy. Still and all, that is hardly my business. If people want to come on here and make complete arses of themselves in that way, it's really nothing to me. I just thought that the people commenting might want to stop and think a little sometimes and consider that they are in fact providing a showcase to the general public of what sort of people home educate. I can't help feeling that some are not very good advertisements for the general quality of home educators.

52 comments:

  1. I suspect you might have set the tone for this by comparing Michael Gove to a weasel, Simon. That could be straight out of 'Alice'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As opposed of course to all the pleasant and complimentary remarks made by so many home educators about the previous Secretary of State for Education, Ed Balls!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anyone who spends any time mixing with home educators will soon conclude that as a mass they are an odd bunch! However they are also very diverse; on here you mostly seem to attract some folk who are personally opposed to anything you say, so we tend to have long involved arguments about something you may or many not have said elsewhere once and so on. All of this is perfectly pointless; for me, there are lots of real issues out there which affect HE and which are worth discussing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "there are lots of real issues out there which affect HE and which are worth discussing."

    Quite right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So in the light of that, since I am pretty sure that the new Govt doesn't have the will or the money to implement huge "Badman Like" changes to HE law; what would be a possible compromise to alleviate the concerns about child protection issues? I know that Ian Dowty suggested at HEFES that "notfication of intent to HE" may be a necessary sacrifice; but the most vehement anti establishment home edders won't agree to that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well yes, Suzy. I had to look up the word musteline the other day. LOL!

    Simon, my advice to you, if you are serious about reasoned discussion here is to avoid naming and attacking other people in your blog posts. That will then set the tone for the comments. And then the contrast between the commenters and yourself will be more obvious.

    That wasn't a dig, btw. Just a suggestion.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  7. " naming and attacking other people in your blog posts."

    I'm not sure that naming the Secretary of State for Education is really something to be avoided at all costs when discussing current trends in education, Mrs Anon! Perhaps comparing him to a weasel might be a little much though and so I take your point. I am bound to say that when I consider some of the breathtakingly awful things that home educators were saying about Graham Badman, Ed Balls and Baroness Deech, I think that calling Michael Gove a bit of a weasel seems pretty small beer!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Simon, my advice to you, if you are serious about reasoned discussion here is to avoid naming and attacking other people in your blog posts."

    Agreed. It would also be nice to see some positive articles about HE - possibly about your style or experiences, for instance. You write very little about what works in HE, seeming to prefer attacking autonomous education and anything said by autonomous educators in other conversations anywhere on the internet at every opportunity, which probably accounts for much of the negativity in your comments. If you constantly attack a group, why are you surprised when they attack you? You say you are pro home education. It would be nice to see some evidence of this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "possibly about your style or experiences"

    Well a couple of days ago I posted a link to a newspaper article about my daughter. There are two problems with this appraoch, or possibly three. Firstly, when I have put up such pieces, the accusation is immediately made that I think that only my way is the right way. Secondly, it looks a bit boastful to go on about my own child's achievement. It would be rather like finding yourself trapped in a room with a proud father dtermined to show you endless photographs of his kid and tell you how marvellous and talented she is. Finally, my own experience says nothing at all about home education in general. It is one way among many. I am pretty sure that this sort of highly structured approach works well enough, but have no interest in being evangelical about it. On the other hand, I am dubious about the benefits of some systems and so tend to look critically at them. Since you have specifically asked though, I shall in the next few days post something of the sort.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'I'm not sure that naming the Secretary of State for Education is really something to be avoided at all costs when discussing current trends in education, Mrs Anon!'

    Hmmmm....I was thinking more about the home educators you don't seem to like, people in the news etc. Maybe it's just me, but I always have a sharp intake of breath when you do that.

    Possibly I am too sensitive and this is common in HE blogs?

    To be fair on you, you do post some positive things about HE. It's just that they get ignored because they aren't juicy enough for people. They only want to comment when they disagree with you?

    Maybe?
    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Possibly I am too sensitive and this is common in HE blogs?"

    I would blush to tell you some of the things which have been said about me by name on HE blogs! On the Dare to Know blog a couple of months ago, I was told that I would have children's blood on my hands if the CSF Bill was passed. Being called a weasel would be nothing compared to that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It might be worth bearing in mind that a number of people from both the DfE and also various local authorities read this blog regularly. Reading the comments here has had the effect of hardening their views on increased regulation, because they say that some of those posting give the distinct impression that they are not really fit people to undertake sole responsibility for a child's education."

    Threatening words, Simon.

    Let me tell your parasitic mates that they will be lucky if they even HAVE A JOB by the end of next year, let alone any a budget to come bothering half a dozen people mocking you on the internets.

    You have done more to damage and undermine the wider HE community than any of us could ever do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Threatening words, Simon."

    No, I was just getting embarrassed on behalf of some of these people. As I said above, if they want to make fools of themselves here, that's their affair. I thought that I would mention that they are not creating a very good impression for home educators, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "You have done more to damage and undermine the wider HE community than any of us could ever do."

    Oh come on, Anon, be real- what has Simon actually done? There are a few odd views expresssed on here by others and some of those are far more potentially worrying!

    Simon may be in error on some things and is often irritating but there are more dangerous ideas out there than his!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You have done more to damage and undermine the wider HE community than any of us could ever do."

    Oh come on, Anon, be real- what has Simon actually done? There are a few odd views expresssed on here by others and some of those are far more potentially worrying!

    Simon may be in error on some things and is often irritating but there are more dangerous ideas out there than his!"

    No, Simon HAS damaged the reputation of HE in the UK. His anti-HE 'journalism' printed in national newspapers has been read by many tens of thousands of people. This HAS damaged and undermined home education and its reputation. During the Badman consultation he was actively against HE in the UK. How does this compare with a couple of people commenting on this blog?

    And please tell me which 'dangerous ideas' you are so worried about. The most dangerous views here are Simon's. HE believes we are born into servitude of the state and HE believes we have no rights other than those given to us by statutory law. Do you not understand the real significance of this?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am not going into a blow by blow account of who said what; I will say that I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that I don't agree with Simon either in his support for Badman or his vilification of autonomous educators; but I also think that some of the other "anti Badman" crew have behaved in what can only be described as bizarre ways and some have some very odd allies. Now I know some have attempted to justify their actions because they have felt their way of life was under threat; and I have every sympathy with the issues, but not the methods.

    In every "issue" there are always bloggers and campaigners on both sides, and these ideas come to light in the national press; I don't think that newspaper readers are swayed by the writings of one man in the way you seem to expect. Nor is there any evidence that his views had an adverse effect on the Select Committee etc. "They" were bound to call someone many home educators regarded as a hostile witness and if wasn't Simon they would have found someone else. Furthermore I am not particularly worried about what people say here on this blog (although it does get in the way of discussing the issues) but it is what the same people do publically elsewhere which I feel causes real problems, and to use a phrase which at least Mrs Anon will understand, is an even poorer witness for the cause of HE. Unlike Simon, I am not into "naming and shaming" however!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "During the Badman consultation he was actively against HE in the UK."

    This is so wierd that I can hardly bother commenting upon it. According to AM's false dichotomy one is either in favour of unregulated and unrestricted home education or actively against home education. I'm glad that 'journalism' was put in quoatation marks. I would hardly describe two short oipinion pieces as 'journalism'. Has anybody actually read the transcript of the select committee hearing, if that is what is meant by being 'actively against' HE? I spoke for a tenth of the time of the other three witnesses. Get a grip AM.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I shouldn't worry about it, Simon. People tend to get rather carried away on the internet and I'm sure that people from the DfE or local authorities aren't making rash judgements about home educators based solely on your blog. That would be very unprofessional, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ""They" were bound to call someone many home educators regarded as a hostile witness and if wasn't Simon they would have found someone else."

    No, Simon was the ONLY home educator who was for Badman. There was no one else. He is so vilified by the HE community because he has actively tried to destroy the very rights that he has so happily enjoyed throughout his daughter's childhood. How can any views expressed here, or on any other HE blog, compare with this?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "According to AM's false dichotomy one is either in favour of unregulated and unrestricted home education or actively against home education."

    You are actively against unregulated and unrestricted HE, which means you are actively against HE. If HE is restricted and regulated it is a form of state education - at home or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "No, Simon was the ONLY home educator who was for Badman. There was no one else."

    This is of course completely untrue. I have already mentioned that a third of the parents who responded to the Badman review were in favour of registration. I am not about to go into all this again, but if we assume that there are around eighty thousand parents of home educated children in this country, then those who wrote in to the Badman review rejecting all changes amount to perhaps 2% of this total. We have no idea what the other 98% think, although I am quite prepared to believe that many of them are also opposed to any change in the status quo. To suggest that I am the only one who was in favour of Badman is a grotesque assertion for which you have no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, Simon was the only home educator of his views who wrote a submission to the Select Comm; but I can find you a few who make his views seems perfectly moderate. There are folk out there who believe, for example, that only certain sorts of people should be allowed to home educate. They too reply to some of the newspaper columns and are otherwise active; that is one reason why I am always a bit dubious about posting campaigns on local lists - you don't always get the response you expect!
    Even the data from the consultations showed that - a majority did reject the proposals, but a substantial minority wanted some of Badman and a few all. They are not all called Simon!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You are actively against unregulated and unrestricted HE, which means you are actively against HE. If HE is restricted and regulated it is a form of state education - at home or otherwise."

    Just the sort of statement which makes ordinary people shake their head in wonder and dismiss home educators as cranks and wierdos. This is poor publicity for home education. You really don't need my help in damaging the reputation of HE in the UK, AM; you are doing a pretty good job by yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I'm sure that people from the DfE or local authorities aren't making rash judgements about home educators based solely on your blog."

    Yes, i didn't mean to suggest that the staff at the DfE come in in the morning and immediately log on here to find out what they should be doing about home education! However Penny Jones from the DfE has told me that she enjoys this blog and I have had emails from some local authority officers expressing amazement at some of the comments they have read here. I don't think I am that influential Allie!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear me! Simon's rattled because some of his crude and deceitful argumentative tricks have been dissected and described in public; it must have been a sour weekend in the Webb household, culminating in his latest rant - perhaps more appropriately entitled 'Operation Cover-up'.

    I wrote the remark he quoted:
    "...really very little of substance is known about him..."

    but it's strange that he didn't quote it in full:

    "It's strange that he gets upset about anonymous comments and yet really very little of substance is known about him. I have no problem with this, or anonymity, if statements are taken at face value and are in the open. One can read and comment on what is written, without additional context about the writer."

    Given the kind of stories Simon tells about himself, he might as well be anonymous. I treat "Simon Webb" merely as a label and comment on his (or her) postings here.

    Son of Willie Whitelaw? Seems unlikely... Stalin, maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I apparently, 'like to hint at things about himself which might lead one astray as a first time reader, then says things along the lines of "whatever makes you think I'm..." (e.g., christian). She seems to be saying here that she does not know enough about my religious convictions. What bearing this might have upon home education remains obscure.

    I've noticed this too! Rather than having a bearing on home ed, it annoys people who're debating with you (usually about HE). Probably adds to the annopyence of AEs who you continually misunderstand too!

    I wonder if you'll now be reporting in horror about a home educator who siad you might be the son of Stalin, and what a weirdo they must be lol, based on the throwaway comment above.

    Anonymous (above) I don't think Simon recognises how his views that children have the (enforced!)"right" to be told to learn what he thinks they should learn might be wrong, so he sees himself as trying to help children, rather than trying to dominate people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ah, two more anonymous types. As I remarked in my post, these people, while apparently irritated that they do have my full CV in front of them, will not even reveal their own gender. The argument which I have seen used by these people is that they are afraid that if I know their names then I might say something horrible about them. Sensitive flowers! Let's see how ordinary people react when horrible things are said about them on blogs.

    Her is Carlotta on the Dare to Know blog a few months ago;

    To all supporters of Scedule 1 of the CSF bill, Deech, Soley, Badman, Ed Balls, Simon Webb, whoever you may be. Be very aware that by forcing children, either because of some administrative error on the part of parents, or because an ignorant LA officer says so and without any chance to offer a defence in court, back into school, you will almost certainly have blood on your hands.

    Children's blood on my hands! This is a bit worse than anything I have said about anybody here. Tell me Anonymous, when I posted a response to this on Carlotta's blog, do you imagine that I thought for a moment to do so anonymously? Go and read the comments there and see. It is precisely because I always sign my name that people like you have been able to pick up snippets of infomation about me. If I just remained anonymous, as you prefer to do, then there would be no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I've noticed this too! Rather than having a bearing on home ed, it annoys people who're debating with you (usually about HE). Probably adds to the annopyence of AEs who you continually misunderstand too!"

    Absolutely incredible! I mention that I am a regular church goer, somebody jumps to the conclusion that i must be a Christian and when I explain that this is not so, people, often AE types apparently, get annoyed. I had to poing out that I was noy a Christian originally because although it does not generally matter to me whether people think this of me, peole were writing to the select committee complaining that a Christian fundamentalist had been called to give evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I wonder if you'll now be reporting in horror about a home educator who siad you might be the son of Stalin, and what a weirdo they must be lol, based on the throwaway comment above."

    Not at all, but it is certainly a new twist on Godwin's Law. I have noticed the introduction of Stalin rather than Hitler as a comparison in a few places recently and am flattered that I should be an early target for this.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AM:"If HE is restricted and regulated it is a form of state education - at home or otherwise."

    SW:"Just the sort of statement which makes ordinary people shake their head in wonder and dismiss home educators as cranks and wierdos."

    What is the purpose of the regulation and restriction of HE if not to control its content and methods? If the content and methods are determined by the state, HE becomes another vehicle for state education.

    Explain to me why I am a 'crank and weirdo' for saying this.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Simon said:
    "Ah, two more anonymous types. As I remarked in my post, these people, while apparently irritated that they do have my full CV in front of them"

    Simon, do you really misunderstand what was said or are you being deliberately misleading?

    I don't give two hoots who or what you are; I simply comment on what is attributed to the entity that calls itself "Simon Webb"; however, when you complain about anonymous posters, you should recall your own chameleon-like behaviour; e.g., are you a teacher? Are you a zionist? The latter seems completely irrelevant to HE but you've claimed it on this blog (for the record, I don't care one way or the other). You often seem to make some obfuscative fuss - often about what you are, or are not - then get upset when people are confused.

    As I've said, I don't care and I suspect most others don't either. Perhaps you're confused about who you are and even what you believe; it certainly looks that way sometimes.

    Given this, not to mention your recent comments on cosmology, I think it's you, Simon, that looks like the crank (waits for a cry of "ad hominem attack").

    ReplyDelete
  32. Simon said,
    "I mention that I am a regular church goer, somebody jumps to the conclusion that i must be a Christian"

    You don't really help though, do you? You also said to someone that you home educate for religious reasons so you cannot be accused of being anti-Christian. Why would you being religious but *not* Christian mean that you cannot be accused of being anti-Christian? It seems logical on the basis of your (cannot be anti-Christian) comment that you are also Christian but that assumption is based on your original comment making logical sense.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "You also said to someone that you home educate for religious reasons so you cannot be accused of being anti-Christian. Why would you being religious but *not* Christian mean that you cannot be accused of being anti-Christian?"

    The fact that I attend church regularly suggests that I am not anti-Christian. The fact that I home educated for religious reasons suggests that I am not an atheist. I made these remarks to a fundamentalist American Christian home educator in order to reassure her that I was not attacking a particular case of home education on religious grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Given this, not to mention your recent comments on cosmology, I think it's you, Simon, that looks like the crank "

    Odd how when autonomous educators discuss Popper's ideas we all listen respectfully, but that if I expalin his cosmology I sound like a crank! Pretty disrespectful to other AE types.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simon said:
    "Odd how when autonomous educators discuss Popper's ideas we all listen respectfully, but that if I expalin his cosmology I sound like a crank!"

    Jumping to conclusions again Simon; I was actually referring to your dismissal of multiverse cosmology as:
    "quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator".

    I'm agnostic on the multiverse cosmology, but while I've no problem with faith-based religion (although I have none), your kind of argument against it is clearly that of a crank.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Jumping to conclusions again Simon; I was actually referring to your dismissal of multiverse cosmology"

    I'm not psychic! I was discussing cosmology today and you mentioned my views on cosmology. How on earth could I guess that you were talking about something I said weeks ago?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Simon said:
    "How on earth could I guess that you were talking about something I said weeks ago?"

    Excellent - you don't deny that you were a crank a few weeks ago! If you were a crank then, there's a good chance that you're still a crank.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Excellent - you don't deny that you were a crank a few weeks ago! If you were a crank then, there's a good chance that you're still a crank. "

    I see. Your logic is that if somebody accuses me today of being a shape-shifting lizard from the planet Zog and I don't immediately deny it; this is evidence that I am actually a shape shifting lizard? Look at the tile of this post and ask yourself about your mental processes.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Simon said:
    "Look at the tile of this post and ask yourself about your mental processes."

    I'm smugly quite satisfied with half a century of my mental processes, thankyou very much. They've given me a reasonably successful and very happy life that has also been very beneficial to myself, others and the economy.

    If interfering cranks and busybodies - particularly those that are a drag on the rest of society - can be kept out of the way, I hope to be able to set the next generation on the same path.

    Some of your readers in DCSF/DfE and local authorities who wish to make a nuisance of themselves would do well to consider how wealth is generated for their inflated salaries and pensions (I exclude the people at the front line who keep their heads down) while they deliver a so-called education system that is failing catastrophically and try to interfere with those who wish to do better.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Some of your readers in DCSF/DfE and local authorities who wish to make a nuisance of themselves would do well to consider how wealth is generated for their inflated salaries and pensions"


    For 'generated', read stolen.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add
    to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates.

    I've been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.

    My blog NFL Jerseys Wholesale

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm amazed, I have to admit. Rarely do I come across a blog that's equally educative and interesting, and let me tell you, you've hit the nail on the head. The issue is an issue that not enough men and women are speaking intelligently about. Now i'm very happy I came across
    this in my hunt for something concerning this.

    Review my web site - http://www.wheelhousebikes.com/cheapnfljerseys.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hello, constantly i used to check weblog posts here early in the morning,
    because i enjoy to gain knowledge of more and more.

    Feel free to visit my web-site :: Louis Vuitton Handbags

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm gone to say to my little brother, that he should also visit this blog on regular basis to take updated from latest reports.

    My webpage: Cheap Jerseys

    ReplyDelete
  45. Great delivery. Great arguments. Keep up the amazing effort.


    Also visit my web site; Nike Air Jordan

    ReplyDelete
  46. I know this if off topic but I'm looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is needed to get set up? I'm assuming having a blog
    like yours would cost a pretty penny? I'm not very internet savvy so I'm not 100% certain. Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

    My site Nike air max

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really recognise what you are
    talking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also consult with my
    web site =). We will have a link exchange agreement between us

    my homepage; wealthwayonline.com

    ReplyDelete
  48. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something which I think I
    would never understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me.
    I'm looking forward for your next post, I'll try to get the hang of it!


    Here is my site; Abercrombie & Fitch

    ReplyDelete
  49. I blog often and I seriously thank you for your content.
    This article has truly peaked my interest.
    I am going to book mark your site and keep checking for
    new details about once a week. I opted in for your Feed too.



    Here is my weblog; http://www.converseshopfr.com/

    ReplyDelete
  50. Spot on with this write-up, I seriously feel this website
    needs much more attention. I'll probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!

    My site; www.wheelhousebikes.com

    ReplyDelete
  51. Marvelous, what a website it is! This blog gives useful
    information to us, keep it up.

    my blog post Air Max Pas Cher

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hello there, I found your site via Google even as looking for a comparable subject, your site got here up, it looks
    good. I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
    Hello there, just became alert to your blog via Google, and found that it is truly informative. I'm going to watch out for brussels.
    I will be grateful if you continue this in future.

    A lot of other people can be benefited from your writing.
    Cheers!

    Also visit my web site: Air Max

    ReplyDelete