Questionable Motives

November 13, 2010

Just how gullible does the Roman Catholic Church want Americans to be?

This is the US we’re talking about, land of the free, home of the brave, the shining city on the hill, the Nobel prize capital of the world. So, naturally, I thought the roman catholic church was so busy vilifying secularists and the great evil they represent – including such theistic affronts as human rights, political freedoms, dignity of personhood, respect for scientific understanding, and all that mundane, temporal jazz – that I assumed this conference was a bunch of modern day catholics poking fun at one of their absurdities from almost-ancient history.

Isn’t that the way most enlightened and educated Americans think about demonic possession?

But when it comes to treating demonic possession, the rc church is all business. It remains steadfast in bringing to bear all the modern weaponry at its disposal for the modern American citizen: exorcisms! That’s right, folks. There is growing need for them and the church needs to step up and do its theological duty. Cast that demon out. Use force if you have to. That very difficult and demanding expertise includes the brute force of using conjugated Latin, too. Very scary stuff to any demon to be sure… and even scarier to young people everywhere who need to learn it. Nevertheless, let us press on and read about what the rc church is doing behind closed doors at a hush-hush Baltimore conference:

There are only a handful of priests in the country trained as exorcists (it IS a university degree after all), but they say they are overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil.

Now, American bishops are holding a conference on Friday and Saturday to prepare more priests and bishops to respond to the demand. The purpose is not necessarily to revive the practice, the organizers say, but to help Catholic clergy members learn how to distinguish who really needs an exorcism from who really needs a psychiatrist, or perhaps some pastoral care.

“Not everyone who thinks they need an exorcism actually does need one,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., who organized the conference. “It’s only used in those cases where the Devil is involved in an extraordinary sort of way in terms of actually being in possession of the person.

Let’s ponder that last quote for a moment. Exorcism is needed when the devil is involved. Otherwise, one doesn’t really need that directed Latin. I see.

“But it’s rare, it’s extraordinary, so the use of exorcism is also rare and extraordinary,” he said. “But we have to be prepared.”

Yes, I strongly suspect that is rare. And extraordinary. And supernatural, it goes without saying. But the church is on the job. Take THAT, you evil secularist doubter who stands by while that misogynistic Satan has his way with small boys and helps protect the pedophiles in his employ. Oh, wait… I’m thinking of… umm… (diversion is needed)… Squirrel!

Where was I? Exorcism. Right.

So how does one diagnose demonic possession?

Some of the classic signs of possession by a demon, Bishop Paprocki said, include speaking in a language the person has never learned (excluding Latin, I presume); extraordinary shows of strength; a sudden aversion to spiritual things like holy water or the name of God; and severe sleeplessness, lack of appetite and cutting, scratching and biting the skin.

A person who claims to be possessed must be evaluated by doctors to rule out a mental or physical illness, according to Vatican guidelines issued in 1999, which superseded the previous guidelines, issued in 1614.

1999. Yup. New guidelines. 1999. The age of rare, extraordinary, supernatural demonic infestations are being re-defined by Vatican bureaucrats for their version of the disease in DSM IV (under Demonic Possession, no doubt) while atom colliders are being built deep underground, genomes are being catelogued, and missions to Mars are being carried out.

Now that leaves me wondering what kind of doctor rules out mental or physical illness for a bat shit crazy person babbling incoherently (sorry… speaking in ‘tongues’ is the correct lingo I think) and exhibiting violent behaviours including self harm? I would tend to think it must be a bat shit crazy doctor who is no longer able to maintain a living as a general practitioner… for somewhat obvious reasons of having lost his mind and turning to Oogity Boogity! for his professional opinion. I’m glad that such a person is not my family doctor and the church is welcome to him (I assume no women would fit the employment criteria… having the wrong gonads and all).

“People are talking about, are we taking two steps back?” Father Vega said. “My first reaction when I heard about the exorcism conference was, this is another of those trappings we’ve pulled out of the past.”

But he said that there could eventually be a rising demand for exorcism because of the influx of Hispanic and African Catholics to the United States. People from those cultures, he said, are more attuned to the experience of the supernatural.

That’s religious-speak for too damned ignorant to know any better, which is just the way the church likes ’em. Especially those with an MD after their names. Always room at the inn, dontcha know, if you have the right gonads, the right frequency tuned to bat shit crazy, and the right gullibility to think modern medicine and demonic possession are mutually accommodating.

And people think science and religion are incompatible. I know! Those militant, strident, and arrogant atheistic secularists say the most ridiculous things!


  1. Certainly you must be knowledgeable enough about logic to understand what a hasty generalization is…?

    Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 5:03 am | Reply

    • And which part is the hasty generalization?

      Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 9:39 am | Reply

      • The part where you assume this is proof that “science and religion are incompatible”.

        Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

      • What, then, is the nature of “religious truth” that supposedly complements “scientific truth”? The first thing we should ask is whether, and in what sense, religious assertions are “truths.” Truth implies the possibility of falsity (you cannot determine something is ‘true’ without some means to to compare how it may be ‘false’), so we should have a way of knowing whether religious truths are wrong. But unlike scientific truths, religious ones differ from person to person and sect to sect. And we all know of clear contradictions between the “truths” of different faiths. Christianity unambiguously claims the divinity of Jesus, and many assert that the road to salvation absolutely depends on accepting this claim, whereas the Qua’ran states flatly that anyone accepting the divinity of Jesus will spend eternity in hell. These claims cannot both be “true,” at least in a way that does not require intellectual contortions. So how can we know which is the truth, or at least which claims are closer to it if we presume it to be possibly true?

        There is a fundamental distinction between scientific truths and religious truths, however you construe them. The difference rests on how you answer one question: how would I know if I were wrong? Thomas Huxley remarked that “science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” Religious beliefs are immune to such ugly facts. Indeed, they are oftentimes maintained in the face of ugly facts, such as the impotence of prayer. There is no way to adjudicate between conflicting religious truths as we can between competing scientific explanations. You’ll note that there is one science described by the scientific method – methodological naturalism – but many theologies and metaphysics that follow no other method than ‘faith’, assertion, and assumption. So the most important conflict is not between religion and science per se… it is between religion and secular reason. Secular reason includes science, but also embraces moral and political philosophy, mathematics, logic, history, journalism, and social science – every area that requires us to have good reasons for what we believe. And therein lies the incompatibility.

        (Borrowed heavily from Jerry Coyne’s article in the New Republic)

        Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

      • Yes. Nice. Another wildebeest. I know. ^_^

        How is it relevant to the logic of your conclusion?

        Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

      • Very.

        Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

      • Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 6:10 pm

  2. What worries me more is that homeopathy quacks dwell on vulnerable people (i.e. the sick) with the objective of selling their snake oil to them (in this case the demon is the illness).

    What people don’t realise is that the same thought processes that allow these childish and stupid concepts to manifest within society cause real damage to real people.

    Stupid crap like this does stop people with illness (both mental and physical) seeing people in a ‘white coat’ for proper clinically proven treatment.

    The irony is that in the third world where witchcraft and medieval remedy is rife, people would give anything for clinically tested western medicine to be administered to cure their ailments. While in the west, there is ‘new breed’ of superstitious fools who will pay $120 dollars for a sugar pill, or a palm reading or a exorcists to cast out their demons.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 14, 2010 @ 5:48 am | Reply

    • Human ignorance based the desire to assign agency knows no boundary. It takes intellectual effort – not money spent on people who claim to be able to peek behind the curtain of the supernatural – to NOT fool ourselves, and that’s the effort too many are quite willing to forgo.

      Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 9:53 am | Reply

  3. Hey, you don’t need such kiddy stuff insanity like RC Exorcism. I think this video is really scary!

    Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 5:59 am | Reply

    • It’s all the same inevitable bat shit crazy result from thinking that belief without compelling evidence has the same place at the table of rational discourse as reasons backed by compelling evidence. This is ignorance in action. This is the result of too many of us respecting ignorance because it comes cloaked as religious belief. And he’s helping to make decisions on behalf of the public through the power of his public office that imposes his bat shit crazy religious beliefs on the rest of us and to our collective detriment.

      Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 9:50 am | Reply

      • “And yet these millions of cars must somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile long 30 foot wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river. Carved, by the way, by people who I’m sure had their differences. And they do it. Concession by conscession. You go. Then I’ll go. You go. Then I’ll go. You go then I’ll go. Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your car? Is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, that’s okay – you go and then I’ll go.

        And sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute, but that individual is rare and he is scorned and not hired as an analyst.

        Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together.”


        Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

  4. FF totally agree – this guy is absolute nutter, why on earth is he in a position of responsibility? I like the expression on the woman’s face that is sitting behind him… says it all really.

    Why is the clergy involved in a debate about global warming at all?

    Would we ask a window cleaner for their opinion?

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 14, 2010 @ 6:22 am | Reply

    • Why indeed? But is there any area of human expertise where the religious leadership feels their faith does NOT empower them to go? Quick! Let’s ask a priest to help us determine the answer.

      Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 9:56 am | Reply

      • Some might enjoy this video from Crispian called The Twat In The Hat borrowing heavily from Dr Seuss.

        Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 10:12 am

  5. Please do your research people…you guys are crazy!And you said you studied metaphysics….interesting!

    Comment by 4amzgkids — November 14, 2010 @ 12:13 pm | Reply

    • Yes, people… don’t provide evidence for demonic possession to inform your position. We must retreat from demanding such proof and instead go back and study more metaphysics! Study hard the metaphysics of the magical fabrics the emperor wears before daring to suggest that the catholic church actually meet the same criteria of evidence that it demands of those who accuse its agents of raping children.

      What a bunch of misogynistic hypocrites who continue to support this disgusting institution of ignorance.

      Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 3:22 pm | Reply

      • *Passes you a hanky and points at the flecks of foam that have landed on your chin and chest.*
        I know you like wrestling trolls (and you’d have me believe there is no such thing as unicorns, or trolls under bridges, hah), and I can understand that. It’s great to prove onself right. But don’t embarrass yourself by taking on a mental featherweight such as 4amzgkids. I mean, have you looked at the blog?!
        Seriously, old sport… ts-ts-ts

        Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

      • Now FF, be nice. 4ak and I have a long history and she is welcomed to make her comments as she sees fit. She is one of those catholics who believes the church is god’s instrument and everything it does – no matter how revolting – is true to that except for the unfortunate byproducts of imperfect humans.

        Comment by tildeb — November 14, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

      • Well, in that case I can only direct him/her to this report. If I may quote from it as (one) miniscule example: “[name withheld] was a lovely lad. He used to sing and we would sit around listening, he always knew all the words. He and another boy decided to run away, we were all punished, there were no films and we all went to bed early, we cursed them. They were gone for a week and eventually brought back. We were all lined up and they were battered, then 4 Brothers took them into a room, with hurling sticks and leathers, we could hear them screaming, when they came out they were unrecognisable, purple ears, totally closed up eyes, backside totally out of shape, I’ll never forget it. You heal, but it takes months and you’re never the same again after it. I never heard him singing after that.”
        As for the question of unfortunate byproducts, the Irish Times (not know as the most anti-Catholic of publications) had this to say: “The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenceless children – over 800 known abusers in over 200 Catholic institutions during a period of 35 years – should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system.” (21 May 2009) (So much for the 250 named above… this is Ireland, alone)
        And if one needs any more arguments, whole irrational yet straight to the heart, just have a look at this video.
        Nah, the Church is as corrupt as any human institution.

        Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

      • More corrupt, I think, because it pretends to hold the higher moral ground. And that’s why the betrayal is so much deeper: it has been a systematic cover-up by those at the highest levels for at least several centuries – not by a few wayward individuals but by canon. And the deepest betrayal is that those who were abused and dared to complain faced excommunication, whereas the rc church’s dear friend Hitler never was. This helps us establish what the church thinks is the bigger crime. And that’s why it’s more corrupt: it upholds morals so skewed that it helps to abuse and even kill people for its theological positions while believing its moral stance that empowers the theology is pious.

        Comment by tildeb — November 15, 2010 @ 10:00 am

    • Tildeb, we have been through this and yet you continue on…why? We have discussed metaphysics and you have stated you studied this. What do priest and molestation have to do with it? we also discussed this…less then 1/2 a percent of the priests have done harm and they are sick people hiding in the church. It is not the church itself and it is everywhere…even in the atheist realms.

      Thank you for the defense below..obviously another uneducated liberal hater.

      God bless!

      Comment by 4amzgkids — November 16, 2010 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

      • The issue 4amzgkids is that the Pope is a bald faced lying nazi – who covered up child abuse in the church. In addition, if exorcism actually worked (which it doesn’t because it is bullshit) they would use it on their own clergy first to ensure that the ‘demons’ don’t infect and possess the clergy so that innocent young boy’s don’t get fiddled with.

        You can’t have it both ways 4amgkids – the clergy including the ‘Pope’ are either infected with the devil (according the to the church) in which case they have the proven tools to to remove this evil (exorcism) or exorcism is hog wash and priests are just perverts. But even if the church accepts that they are just perverts, and stops making up excuses about evil demons, this is no excuse either – morally the Pope should have been reporting this to the police, and providing the evidence to allow the authorities to arrest these animals – instead he was helping them escape justice.

        Imagine for one second, if I committed a crime, and said ‘it wasn’t me’ it was the devil (or some other supernatural bollocks) – what would people think? This is what the Church is saying ‘it wasn’t me, it was the devil – hold the devil to account’… i.e. they are hiding behind the unprovable – because the devil, like god can not be proven to exist or be held to account.

        Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 17, 2010 @ 1:14 am

      • Once more, with feeling:
        “The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenceless children – over 800 known abusers in over 200 Catholic institutions during a period of 35 years – should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system.”
        (Irish Times, 21 May 2009)

        Comment by FreeFox — November 17, 2010 @ 11:57 am

      • Exactly right.

        Comment by tildeb — November 17, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

  6. Out standing – I loved the ‘Twat in the Hat’ – so true… what a plonker, why in this age do we have to bow down to some silly witch doctor, and pay for it… it has got to be the most successful con on earth.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 14, 2010 @ 2:06 pm | Reply

    • MUR, please show me where the pope hid it….they don’t go crazy in the public eye because that brings out all of the money seeking, hate mongers. I am very sad that it ever happened…it disgusts me….but those are sick men…and they are few compared to the overall scheme of things. There are 47,000 priests…I also saw that someone said something about the church killing? Where does this stuff come from…seriously. Are people referring to the inquisition? Which was led by Isabelle and not the Catholic church…she was Catholic but the church was not the one telling her to kill in the name of religion. Everything out in the secular world is so skewed…people need to really research this information that they find and stop the hatred. The church over all does so much good in the world. Why can’t people look at that?

      As far as demons, we can’t expect you to believe that because you don’t believe in God or that you have a soul that leaves your body after death. So why even have an article like this to discuss? This is for believers and we cannot expect you or any other atheist to understand or believe it. I really wish you guys would just try to disprove God…just do it for yourselves…life is short and I want you guys to go to Heaven!

      Comment by 4amzgkids — November 17, 2010 @ 9:25 am | Reply

      • One might be tempted to think that facts would be so for everyone, but then demonic possession would go the way of virgin sacrifices: entertaining but not quite worth the cost.

        This is the point: you (and the church) do not have the right to make up your own facts. Demonic possession is a truth claim – that demons are real, that they are actual beings, that their existence is a fact, that they enter a body, that they take physical control of that body, that they have the means and motive to do so. This is ludicrous. This is superstitious nonsense plain and simple. The reason why it’s ludicrous superstition is because the claim is backed by nothing other than assertion, assumption, and faith. There isn’t a shred, a morsel, a modicum of evidence for such beings, for how they operate, how they cause effect. The very best apologists and accommodationists can do is call demonic possession a metaphor for a change of mental and physical state with causes unknown. And therein lies the thorn: when one accepts the unknown and simply labels it such and such as if that labeling provides a meaningful answer or substantiates the claim, then we’ve gone full around the circle of our self-imposed ignorance. But if we want answers about the unknown, if we want to inquire into it and discover what’s going on, then such assumptions, assertions, and faith are absolutely useless impediments to this undertaking.

        Comment by tildeb — November 17, 2010 @ 9:41 am

      • No tildeb, there is proof…many exorcisms documented…have you researched the paranormal? Just because you haven’t seen it…doesn’t mean it’s not real.

        Comment by 4amzgkids — November 17, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

      • I have not studied the fashion wardrobe of the Emperor, 4ak, nor read the books that describe them, nor researched the fashion houses that supposedly ‘produce’ these wondrous invisible fabrics. Without this ‘knowledge’ can I still say the Emperor wears no clothing?

        Again, there is zero evidence of demons and zero evidence of demonic possession. Anyone who claims differently is welcome to bring this evidence to review by the scientific community and show how the demonic force – the mechanism – causes effect. Until then, believing in demonic possession is nothing more and nothing less than plain old occult belief and run-of-the-mill superstition.

        Comment by tildeb — November 17, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

  7. You have deleted my rant against the RC crimes against Irish home children? For once I join you in the struggle against (well, if maybe not religiously-motivated, so at least) religiously-protect atrocities… and you censor me? O.O Why?

    Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 10:28 pm | Reply

    • Huh? Something’s wonky with either your page or my internet… now the post is back… no idea what that was. Well, you can just delete my previous and this comment then (if you please)… sorry for the fuss…

      Comment by FreeFox — November 14, 2010 @ 10:29 pm | Reply

    • Let me know if this happens again: wordpress directed your comment into the spam folder (probably because it contains links the program doesn’t recognize) and I was unaware. I almost never censor comments (with a few obvious exceptions like spam) so let me know so that I can redirect it back into the comments section. Sorry about that FF.

      Comment by tildeb — November 15, 2010 @ 9:58 am | Reply

  8. He went on to say that “the reality is that an exorcism is really rare. It’s really something rather extraordinary because possession – a person being possessed by a devil or demon – is also very rare.”

    Speaking on what determines the need for an exorcism, Bishop Paprocki said that “we use the principle that you have to exclude all the natural explanations before you resort to the supernatural.”

    “That means getting a medial exam” and a “psychiatric assessment” first, he clarified. If a person is mentally unwell, bringing up the suggestion that he or she is possessed would undoubtedly make the situation worse.

    No belief in the supernatural yet you can’t explain how it all began or re-create it in a lab. You also cannot prove evolution…missing link….why not believe in the supernatural realm. There is tons of info on this…not just from the church either.

    Comment by 4amzgkids — November 17, 2010 @ 9:33 am | Reply

    • The problem is that most people, religious or not, tend to want to exclude explanations they do not want to be true. If you do not want to believe that homosexuality is a natural, probably even biological state, that needs to be accepted and not fought, it leads to this sort of exorcism.
      Of course, this isn’t an exclusive religious behaviour: The secular Swiss government for years forced the Yeniche travelling people to give up their children, who were then “educated” in the settled, modern, civilized way of Western Europe in state homes, without love or respect or family ties. They too took that scientific data they wanted and excluded that which didn’t fit their world view.
      Which is, Tildeb, why I still hold that human motivation must be judged and treated on its own ground, irrespective of questions of divinity. But yeah, the Catholic and other churches are definitely guilty of that crime – seeing things as they want them instead of how they are and lying, decieving, and harming peeps to cling to that illusion.

      Comment by FreeFox — November 18, 2010 @ 9:29 am | Reply

      • My point, FF, is that science – not faith-based belief – will empower knowledge about the biological roots of our sexuality so that this kind of action (exorcism in the 21st century for crying out loud!) can be seen for what it really is: horrendous mental and emotional abuse carried out in the name of a vast and preferred ignorance.

        Comment by tildeb — November 18, 2010 @ 10:20 am

      • Yep. That is why I, too, am all for science. ^_^

        Comment by FreeFox — November 18, 2010 @ 11:14 am

  9. n his opening remarks to the general assembly, Cardinal Bagnasco said that “a person who abuses minors needs to be concurrently brought to justice.”

    Cardinal Bagnasco said the church has never sought to underestimate the severity of the sex abuse crisis and called on families “to recognize that we, the church, will do everything to always, and increasingly, merit their trust.”

    Comment by 4amzgkids — November 17, 2010 @ 9:45 am | Reply

    • If you want to restore trust, then you have to take responsibility for your actions that lead to the breaking of the trust. This, the church will not do. It abdicates all responsibility as an institution and this is where the decisions and actions taken by those in positions of authority to hide the truth, protect pedophiles, organize the movement of criminals to avoid prosecution, create and enforce canon law to blame the victims and threaten them with excommunication for going to secular authorities with complaints took place. The institution colluded with criminals and helped foster child abuse and rape. The pope for his direct part in this criminal activity should be in jail for his crimes and the institution should pay reparations rather than the local dioceses. That would be a good beginning to restore trust. Otherwise the words of such a cardinal are merely empty hand waving. But that’s what the church does best: cause unnecessary suffering and demand that others to pay for the privilege.

      Comment by tildeb — November 17, 2010 @ 11:59 am | Reply

      • No, people do pay. If people were moved around and hidden…then yes, that is sick. Did you look to any Catholic sources for how things are handled or just the liberal media? Those sick people in the church do need help…just as they do outside of the church. Remember the church is about every religion should be. It’s about admitting, forgiving, getting therapy, etc…Just as the church does not believe in abortion or the death penalty. It’s not God’s way.

        I am not condoning these behaviors at all so please know that I and everyone else are sick about what has occurred. However, it was small compared to the number of priests and the good the church does. It is also everywhere….there is more in the protestant churches then in the RC church…however, people like to attack this church and it was said in the bible…it was also said that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

        Anyway, there is really no sense in you posting these articles since you don’t believe in God, metaphysics, the paranormal, etc…Why breed hate for anything? I don’t get it.

        Comment by 4amzgkids — November 17, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

      • No, 4ak, it’s not sick to aid and abet criminal activity like pope Palpatine: it’s a crime. And it’s an institutional crime because there is ample evidence that the Vatican organized the cover-ups time and time again. For you to simplistically adhere to the opinion that this ongoing abuse within its churches and its schools and its orphanages and its hospitals over decades by thousands of its employees was merely a few bad apples is tantamount to closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, while repeating “I can’t HEAR you”. You can, but you refuse to, al the while clucking that such crimes are terrible. What’s terrible is to continue to support a criminal organization that you KNOW is a criminal organization. You are making an idol out of the church.

        Yes, I even read a lot of canon law that expressly imposes penalties on those who tell about the child rapes and abuses. (See here for further information and sources that show why The Rat himself under the direction of JPII aided and abetted child rapists).

        Comment by tildeb — November 17, 2010 @ 5:22 pm


    Comment by 4amzgkids — November 17, 2010 @ 4:02 pm | Reply

  11. “it was also said that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”

    What does this mean?

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 17, 2010 @ 5:06 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: