Skip to content

The Beautiful, the elegant, Attie Awards….

October 7, 2009

attie_1x600I think we all knew this was coming since someone posted the link to this abomination a few days ago. I can honestly say that this week’s Attie award probably deserves it way more than anyone in the history of the Atties. And, that dear friends, is saying something.

The Conservative Bible Project strives to, in their words, “to get rid of Liberal bias in modern translations in the bible”.

I honestly don’t even know where to start tearing into this whole thing. I feel like Cartman after he saw the people with butt faces. His laughing reflex froze and he didn’t know what to do. That’s pretty much how I feel. I want to mock and mock all day long. But I can’t. My mock button has frozen. So, I’ll just give you some statements from the site and let them testfiy to the colossal stupidity:

“Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

“Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”.

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the “social justice” movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word “volunteer” is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word “comrade” is used three times, “laborer(s)” is used 13 times, “labored” 15 times, and “fellow” (as in “fellow worker”) is used 55 times.

Supported by conservative principles, the project can be bolder in uprooting and excluding liberal distortions

this would bring the Bible to a new audience of political types, for their benefit; Bible courses in college Politics Departments would be welcome

Additional less important guidelines include (1) adherence to a concise and dignifying style, such as use of “who” rather than “that” when referring to people and also use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements and (2) recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well.

The more I read on this website, the less laughing I did and the angrier I got. This is such an abuse of God’s word it makes me want to vomit. Obviously, these folks never read the book of Daniel that talks about the Kingdom of God one day crushing all kingdoms, and that includes conservatives. The Bible is not a political tract for you to manipulate into your own warped ideas of Christianity that will serve your political power plays.  

Here is a word for you Conservative Wiki Bible types, the Bible is NOT there to support your political bias, as its not there to support the political bias of liberals. Congrats on figuring out a brand new way to take your stupidity so far as to be on the verge of blasphemy and heresy. Great job. I never thought someone would be able to define the ideals of the Attie Award so perfectly and beautifully. And yet, you have done so. I hope you enjoy your naked dancing around the Golden Calf, because one day you will be forced to drink its ashes from a bitter cup.

St. Thomas, rel…. ah, I see you already on it. Good work, my friend.

39 Comments leave one →
  1. AdamK permalink
    October 7, 2009 10:39 am

    These idiots have come up with something as offensive to atheist humanists as it is to christians. Neat trick.

  2. thomas2026 permalink*
    October 7, 2009 10:46 am

    Indeed, Adam, I’m in awe of it. Absolute awe.

  3. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 7, 2009 12:20 pm

    @adamk – well put, well put…

  4. October 7, 2009 12:29 pm

    I was wondering if/when you would comment on this. The first time I read through the site, I kept expecting to find something that would indicate it was a parody, like I’d somehow been redirected to The Onion or Lark News. But alas, it’s the real thing (you can see their progress here).

    I’m not Bible scholar, but I assume that the ultimate goal of any Bible translation should be to first, bring glory to God, and second, strive to increase the ability of individuals to better know Him. I don’t find any of that desire with the CBP. Rather, the goal is just to bend Scripture to fit their narrowly defined political ideology.

    Even worse, the implication is that the only proper way to understand and interpret the Bible is by subscribing to said ideology. If you don’t, then you don’t have the tools or knowledge to do so, and by extension, come to and know God better.

    The arrogance and hubris on display here is simply stunning.

  5. erp permalink
    October 7, 2009 1:25 pm

    “Forgive them for they know not what they do”

    Unfortunately that was one of the verses they dropped.

    From the site

    First Example – Liberal Falsehood

    The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:

    Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

    Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

    Read the talk pages if you want things to become even more insane.

  6. AdamK permalink
    October 7, 2009 1:27 pm

    Jason, I would assume that the ultimate goal of any bible translation would be accuracy. There’s a lot in the bible that doesn’t reflect well on the “god” character, and it does no service to anyone to whitewash those parts.

  7. October 7, 2009 6:00 pm

    @erp: You’re right, those talk pages are something else.

    @AdamK: Good point. If you believe that God is a God of truth, then being accurate in your translation glorifies God. Or, to put it another way, not being accurate and truthful in the translation could actually dishonor God because it encourages incorrect and untruthful thinking about God.

  8. October 7, 2009 9:29 pm

    This is an outgrowth of an odd obsession Andy has with classifying words as Conservative (i.e., good and godly) and Liberal (evil and sick by definition), and that the former are being created more frequently than the latter. It’s all nonsense, and he’s trying to claim that words like Radar and Transistor are somehow aligned with Conservatism.

    Andy himself is an odd duck. Privileged child who’s so far failed at every endeavour. Failed lawyer, failed engineer, failed pundit, failed politician, and now failed encyclopedia creator, who somehow convinces people to pay him to teach their children the most outrageously bad lessons in history, economics and more. Wander around the site, there’s a whole raft of dysfunctional monomaniacs creating the most outstanding rubbish, from the guy who’s fascinated by Alger Hiss, to the one into that United Airlines flight that got shot down, to the infamous Ken DeMyer (aka “Conservative” on that site) who wrote the abysmally bad Homosexuality (and about 400 secondary articles to that), Atheism, and Evolution articles, all of which he thinks will somehow bring down the whole way of thinking if only he can get a few more Google hits.

    It helps to think of it as a humour site, or possibly a make-work project for those who can’t be socialized into civilized society.

  9. erp permalink
    October 8, 2009 1:08 am

    I suspect a few writers on Conservapedia are trying to see how much Andrew will swallow. Andrew is a true believer though and seems to be the main force behind the Bible project. I wonder what he would do with the Song of Songs. Or Jubilee years.

  10. Ray S. permalink
    October 8, 2009 10:07 am

    I’m guessing that Andy has never read his bible from cover to cover. It’s entirely possible that everyone who has taught him about it hasn’t either.

    Of course if he succeeds in writing a new version, he won’t be the first. What amazes me is that he is attempting it while so many insist that it could not have been done during early church history when there were so many factions arguing over doctrine.

    As someone pointed out on another site, if he takes out everything that only appears in one gospel, he’s going to end up with a very thin book.

  11. October 8, 2009 10:22 am

    What they really need to do is just remove all mention of that peace-and-love hippie, Jesus.

  12. October 8, 2009 10:39 am

    Andy has often said that Jesus put a “special emphasis” on Hell, rather than forgiveness. He also believes that pushing the punishment and damnation angle is most effective in convincing people unsure in their faith.

    Andy is a true believer in whatever pops into Andy’s head. On-site, at least, he considers himself to be near-infallible, and has only EVER admitted error on small things like typos.

  13. Ms. Crazy Pants permalink
    October 8, 2009 1:40 pm

    Adamk really said it all.

    On the positive side, we found something that can unite us against a common enemy.

  14. Lightbearer permalink
    October 8, 2009 3:18 pm

    “The Bible is not a political tract for you to manipulate into your own warped ideas of Christianity that will serve your political power plays.”

    Umm……actually, according to biblical scholarship, this very use is what created the documents in the first place, as well as selecting which documents were canonical, which were apocryphal, and which were simply excluded.

  15. October 8, 2009 5:41 pm


    I am just wondering what you mean by saying the documents were created for a power play in the first place? I don’t think that really understands the nature of the literature in the New Testament.

    Also, the idea that some group randomly selected what documents do or don’t belong in the bible is a false representation of the process that occurred, and is a common myth that really should be dispelled. In reality, by the time the new testament as we know it was canonized, it was much more an acknowledgment of the gospels/epistles/etc… that had ALREADY become authoritative for teaching and worship across the Christian landscape. With a few exceptions, possibly (and I stress the word possibly) a few other books that ended up being deutero-canonical were not allowed, including the Gospel of Thomas, and some other gnostic works. So please, I am begging people, please stop repeating this myth.

    @Ray S.: While your statement that many factions were arguing over doctrine, what is interesting is that almost all of these factions, from the writings we have of the early church and these heresies, affirmed the content of the New Testament, and the scriptures being used for preaching and teaching. While their interpretations differed, like in the instance of Athanasius and Arian over the “substance” of Christ, they were both using the same scripture, not different.

  16. October 8, 2009 5:42 pm

    @ Ray S.: I mean to say that your statement was true, my bad editing skills are going to get me some day…

  17. Ray S. permalink
    October 9, 2009 12:08 am

    Eric, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘almost all of these factions … affirmed the content of the new testament’. We don’t really know the complete range of beliefs among early Christians, nor which of the documents (which eventually made it into the canon or not) they considered accurate or heretical. We do know that some documents considered heretical were destroyed. We do know that some alterations were made to texts in an apparent attempt to reflect doctrine. And this is just based on what texts we have, which of course are not the originals. Not to mention that the New Testament as we have come to know it, did not exist until long after the the time we discuss.

  18. October 9, 2009 4:21 am

    This project horrified me when I read about it earlier this week. When you stop and think about it though, Liberalism is a recent concept. Liberalism did not exist when the King James Version of the bible was written. It certainly didn’t exist (in the form that Conservapeadia believes) when Jesus was alive, when the bible was put together or when many of the early translations into English (and other current languages) exist.

    I don’t think its necessarily a bad idea to modernise the bible and remove archaic language, or language that has changed meaning… but if you also have a certain bias and think that “your” language is better than someone else’s because it reflects your understanding of the world better, then that’s a problem.

    Oh and gambling and cast lots aren’t even remotely the same thing. Gambling relies on chance, casting lots is a form of divination… so perhaps casting runes or some other form of words that translates divination better… but not gambling.

    I could go on and on… but I won’t.

  19. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 9, 2009 8:26 am

    Ray S.-
    I certainly agree that the New Testament as we have it now only came into being as a canonized book with some semblance of an order later on.

    On your point that we cannot see what alterations were made, in fact that is a fallacy that has been addressed many times and in many places. Maybe it is because I am a proponent of John P. Meier’s criterion of embarassment, but it simply doesn’t make sense that the authors edited in things positive for their cause, while NOT removing things that would have been.

    For instance, Jesus says that the law shall not pass away and that he has not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it, which seems to imply that at some level, the law still exists. Peter, then in Acts, says that all things have been deemed clean which erases the necessity for law. Another point, which is the idiotic antics of the disciples, which if they were Church leaders, you would think would have been repaired. (I do realize that some of the “newer” gospels do give a better picture of the disciples, but still far from perfect) The editing argument is not logical with the books that we have, and the controversy we know existed at that point.

    Now I should say that I think that redaction •may• have occurred, but for the most part, it seems minimal.

  20. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 9, 2009 8:27 am

    and again editing is killing me, I meant to say in the 2nd paragraph “while NOT removing things that would have been harmful”

  21. Ray S. permalink
    October 9, 2009 2:51 pm

    Eric: Since you claim to be able to know what was in a text you no longer have, you will be able to post for everyone to read EXACTLY what was in this post before I edited it down to what you can see presently.

    You do not have originals of any biblical text. The manuscripts we do have differ from each other. Sometimes these differences promote one interpretation of theology over another.

    For your other readers, address the issues of the original ending of GMark and the appearance of the adulteress in GJohn. You need not address these issues to me as I know they were added later. Since we know some parts were added later, we cannot be certain of the starting point. You cannot possibly know that even more embarrassing material than what remains was not redacted out.

    Let me be clear; I am not saying the texts were more embarrassing, I’m saying we can’t be certain. If you think you can, you’re not doing history.

  22. AdamK permalink
    October 9, 2009 4:04 pm

    I’m saying we can’t be certain. If you think you can, you’re not doing history.

    For catholics at least, if I understand correctly, church tradition is as authoritative as scripture. It always strikes me as curious just which bits of dogma christians claim they are certain of. Peeling those certainties away from historical scholarship does not appear to be something at which christians are well practiced.

  23. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 9, 2009 5:07 pm

    Ray S. – I agree that we can’t be certain, but you can’t be certain of your conclusions that they were edited to some extreme level to either A.)conceal the truth, B.)to promote the cause), or C.)to protect embarassment. And on the ending of Mark, what we do know is that the longer ending is a later redaction, but many theorize that there was an ending that continued on, believing the narration of Mark to not follow stylistically with an ending like that. On the appearance of the adultress, it was a later addition, but one that follows stylistically and message-wise with the rest of the Gospel.

    I guess for me, the certainty of the editing or non-editing, that occurred really doesn’t phase me, I have to look at the whole body of work which testifies to the Messiah, not the later additions of some bright, creative redactors. When you have Peter, Paul and James, who had to be separated by country due to their •slight• disagreements, all testify to the same Lord. I know that’s not altogether convincing for you, but as someone that grew up in the Church, and was apathetic in college, it was these conversations and research and readings (from across that spectrum, I must stress) that led to me entering seminary to become a pastor and to eventually, hopefully, a doctorate to teach.

    Catholics do believe that tradition ranks equally with scripture, they believe both to be part of God’s unique revelation. We do struggle with just disregarding tradition, but as a Lutheran, I believe that scripture as a whole is on some level self-revealing, yet never fully revealed, and that as a canon it professes the same Lord. Even though my forefather, Martin Luther, though that James, Hebrews and Revelation should be tossed out the window as deutero-canonical.

  24. Ray S. permalink
    October 10, 2009 8:49 am

    Eric says:

    I guess for me, the certainty of the editing or non-editing, that occurred really doesn’t phase me, I have to look at the whole body of work which testifies to the Messiah, not the later additions of some bright, creative redactors.

    Congratulations, from my reading you have contradicted yourself in one sentence. At least you have agreed that others have later added material, but it also appears as if you still include that added material as somehow offering testimony. But thanks at least for admitting that you cannot be certain of exactly what that original body of work was that you find so convincing as to the salvation message.

    And again, you’re putting words in my mouth. I have not claimed extreme editing, and have no particular theology to advance over another. I’m simply admitting that the texts we have are flawed. Sometimes in ways we can easily detect. But I don’t have the hubris to claim that we have identified every flaw. So when I see something attested in only one place, I know it might be wrong.

    Now take GMark 1:40-45 wherein Jesus is approached by a man asking to be healed. Some manuscripts say Jesus became compassionate while others say Jesus became angry. Which reading is correct?

    Consider that GMatt and GLuke disagree on the date of Jesus’ birth, with one asserting that it happened when Herod was King (Herod dies in 4 BCE) and the other during a particular census (which occured in 6 CE). Is either correct or are both wrong? Could either or both details have been added later to support the preaching? Or will you attack the use of the CE designation since it clearly shows that the traditional understanding of the date of Jesus’ birth is wrong? Perhaps you can see why accepting the traditional mainstream view might lead you to be wrong.

  25. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 10, 2009 10:09 am

    i really could give a flying hootenanny about the CE dating. I realize that Christians have done some interesting things do dates and festivals, see Christmas, Easter, etc…

    I guess I don’t see the contradiction, all I am saying is that I realize that redaction most likely occurred, I just don’t think that it really the overarching stories that even those books that were considered gnostic or deutero-canonical attest to, albeit in very strange and what many would consider unorthodox and heretical ways.

  26. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 10, 2009 10:10 am

    again with my proof reading: “i just don’t think that it really AFFECTS the overarching stories..”

  27. Andrew permalink
    October 10, 2009 12:36 pm

    What always confuses me about the dating issue is that 4BC has somehow become the “accepted” date (rather than 6AD) despite the fact that Luke is writing a much more plausible story than Matthew (who is obviously making it all up just to fit his list of OT prophecies).

  28. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 10, 2009 2:07 pm

    I don’t think that you can make an assertion like that Matthew was making it up, because the other gospels attest to many of the same old testament prophecies being fulfilled, albeit in a very different way. Matthew may have attempted, or probably more likely, attempted to do this in writing to a Jewish audience, to clearly emphasize what was being claimed.

  29. Andrew permalink
    October 10, 2009 9:15 pm

    The point about Matthew making stuff up is that of all the gospel writers, Matthew is by far the worst when it comes to introducing stuff that cannot possibly be historical (e.g. having Jerusalem overrun with resurrected saints in his resurrection story – you’d think people would have noticed).

    So in Matthew’s nativity story you have obvious inventions like the massacre of the innocents (which is a trope found in any number of myths of the period, and which is conveniently forgotten about by everybody later in the story); you have inconsistent excuses for Joseph’s travels (saying he avoids Judea because Herod’s son Archelaus is ruling there, but settling in Galilee which is ruled by Herod’s son Antipas); and so on.

    Notice that Luke’s account matches Matthew’s in only two details: the references to Bethlehem and Nazareth. The latter is required to make their story match up with Mark, and the reference to Bethlehem is required to establish a link with the line of David. Every other detail is different between the two accounts, making it highly unlikely that they are anything other than separate inventions. (If they were based on any sort of existing traditions, you’d expect to find some point of similarity.)

    (Of course Luke was also making up his version of the story, but he probably had access to historical references, quite possibly Josephus’ Antiquities, and so he could tie in real historical events to make a more plausible account.)

  30. Ray S. permalink
    October 11, 2009 10:50 pm

    Which stories are the over arching ones? How do you know they have some basis in history? Your theology seems informed primarily from your childhood indoctrination and less so from any historical evidence.

    When you become a minister, will you tell your congregation which stories are true and which are not? Will you tell them Jesus was born on Dec 25th when that is highly unlikely? Will you tell them that the gospel accounts differ as to which day Jesus was crucified? Will you tell them there was no global flood? Will you tell them we cannot find any physical evidence of an exodus? Will you claim that Mary was perpetually a virgin yet Jesus had brothers and sisters? How will you explain the incredible lack of biographical detail from the life of a child supposedly visited by those led to his place of birth by celestial signs? Will you tell them that the earliest writings we have do not mention any biographical detail indicating a living human at the base of the story? In fact will you tell them exactly how we came to even have those writings in modern times, given that we have no manuscripts at all from the first century?

    And if someone asks you, as their minister, why it was necessary for a blood sacrifice to appease God for human sins, what will you say?

  31. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 12, 2009 9:24 am

    Let’s see if I can do this in order, here is my pledge to you for truth:
    1. Jesus was not born on Dec. 25: yes
    2. Gospel accounts differ on the day Jesus was crucified: yes
    3. Evidence of a global flood: sure, actually there is evidence of one, but obviously there is another purpose to this story and it is far from uniquely judeo-christian
    4. Mary a perpetual virgin? I guess I only know of some extremely dogmatic Catholics that make this claim.
    5. Lack of childhood biographical details: I think you misunderstand the nature and purpose of the greek bios and the oral tradition of first century hebraic culture
    6. Earliest writings do not mention any biographical details: Ray, this is a pretty hefty claim that can not be backed up, certainly there are up to modern standards, but that is a logical fallacy to claim that something doesn’t have biographical details because they didn’t think, do, or write history in the way we do now.
    7. No 1st century manuscripts: While we do not have manuscripts from the first century, scholars almost universally accept the first century dating of the writings, and most certainly the pauline epistles as being mid century, but we have been over this time and time again, and just because we don’t have the original manuscripts doesn’t prove anything.

    Finally, on whether God needs a blood sacrifice. My answer is this, God was somehow intimately tied up in the deeds and life of Jesus of Nazareth, whether this means that Jesus “knew” he was God, like we know we are male or female, is unknown, but certainly what occurred was much greater than just a blood sacrifice. Second, the imagery of the slaughtered lamb was a very powerful and potent image in 1st century Judaism as a reminder of Yom Kippur, and the eventual atonement of all sins, so it made sense to use that imagery. I don’t think God needs appeasement, nor does he desire blood, what God desires though is two things, the love of God and the love of the neighbor, which we see most clearly in the life, death, and for me, most importantly, the resurrection of Jesus. So no, I think the penal substiutionary theory of atonement blows, but I do think that Jesus’ action did atone for our iniquities.

  32. Andrew permalink
    October 12, 2009 9:52 am

    3. Evidence of a global flood: sure, actually there is evidence of one,

    I challenged you on that one before (may have been on your blog rather than here); what evidence are you referring to?

  33. Johann permalink
    October 12, 2009 10:42 am

    I don’t think God needs appeasement, nor does he desire blood

    The Bible, going all the way back to Genesis 4, appears to disagree.

  34. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 12, 2009 10:47 am

    @Johann – Yes, and then through out the Prophets we see that God doesn’t desire our sacrifices, blood, etc… but the shema and our worship.

    @Andrew – your right, I never answered you, I guess I should rephrase that. I am not certain of anything showing a massive global flood that wiped out all humans except for Noah, but there have been various theories of major floods in the ANE, including the Ryan-Pittman theory, and also the flooding of the mediterranean due to tsunamis from major earthquakes. Which seems plausible to have created the flood myth all over the east.

  35. Eric Worringer permalink
    October 12, 2009 10:49 am

    @ Johann – What I mean to say is I think that is pretty reductionist, and I think that imagery really is limited to a few stories, especially s&g, the period of joshua, and throughout the early pentateuch, God is serverely pissy. As a Christian though, I do believe that on some level that all views of God must always be realigned with the revelation of God in jesus of nazareth. although I know that is not a very appealing answer for you…

  36. Andrew permalink
    October 12, 2009 11:40 am

    Localised evidence of flooding exists in many places for the period 15,000BC-7000BC or so, for a very simple reason: sea-level rise following the start of the current interglacial period.

    But this isn’t likely to have anything to do with flood myths, because the areas flooded, while large in terms of numbers of square miles, were still quite small as a proportion of inhabited land areas; the flooding was in almost all cases extremely slow (taking thousands of years) and (and this is the kicker) those areas remain underwater to this day, i.e. there was no significant retreat of floodwaters.

    As for Ryan-Pittman, that relates to a (proportionally) small area around the Black Sea, and again we find that the flooded area is still underwater. Even if we believe Ryan-Pittman (which there is excellent evidence to reject), the southern coasts of the Black Sea moved by something on the order of 5 to 30 miles over a timeframe on the order of 100 days, which falls a long way short of being any sort of major catastrophe.

    Not to mention that 5600BC is going a bit too far back to be plausible.

  37. Andrew permalink
    October 12, 2009 12:01 pm

    To sum up (since I didn’t quite get to the conclusion in the previous comment), comparing the Flood with actual historical floods is like comparing the Exodus (which I also challenged you for evidence for) with a couple of dozen people deciding to move to the next town – the scale of the exaggeration would be similar in both cases.

  38. Johann permalink
    October 12, 2009 3:08 pm

    As a Christian though, I do believe that on some level that all views of God must always be realigned with the revelation of God in jesus of nazareth. although I know that is not a very appealing answer for you…

    It’s not about whether it’s appealing to me, Eric – rather, it’s a question of whether you consider the god of the Old Testament to be the same as that of the New. I take it that you do, but even if you didn’t, that wouldn’t change much. There are references to blood throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelations, from allegorical allusions to explicit instructions on its use in worship – here‘s a page with some quotes specifically focusing on the New Testament. And I probably don’t need to remind you what sacramental wine represents.

  39. Ray S. permalink
    October 14, 2009 12:35 am

    Eric, you have some texts that you admit having been added to and altered. Your earliest fragment of a manuscript seems at least a generation after its alleged writing. The earliest complete manuscript you have dates from the fourth century. How is it that you can claim that you are sure that nothing significant was added or changed from the original writing to the earliest manuscripts we have? You’re operating more on hope here than evidence.

    You claim over arching stories that transcend the accuracy of the texts we have, but you have not said what these stories are or how you extract them from the text (if that is indeed your source). Does the possibility that I can take a useful message out of ‘Hansel and Gretel’ mean that I should be looking for archaeological evidence of breadcrumbs in Bavaria?

    You also claim that what Jesus was alleged to have done was ‘greater than just a blood sacrifice’. Frankly I have a rather negative view of blood sacrifices and cannot imagine what you could mean by your phrase. Could an omnipotent god not grant atonement without the suffering and torture of his supposed son?

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: