Science: A career for tossers?

A level results are in and I guess some of you will be discussing with your offspring, degree options and career choices. As usual siren voices in the government are extolling the wisdom of choosing a career in science. Should you let your children be seduced?

A few weeks ago Little Nicky was involved in a bit of a kerfuffle with the boy scientists from The Bad Science forum. One of the more intelligent and articulate commenters eventually asked why science gets such a bad press?
Well it could be something to do with the way, when their certainties are challenged the science boys tend to respond, “You’re not a scientist, you don’t understand scientific methods.” Such a response puts “scientists” in the same category as those religionists whose answer to any challenge is, “Anything is possible for God.” Could it be that narrow minded, blinkered attitude?

Or it could be because we see so many stories like the two below.

Researchers at Herriot Watt University and Strathclyde University claim to have proved older people have difficulty using new technology because physiological deterioration in connections between cells in the frontal lobes of the brain causes them to be easily confused by unfamiliar things.

Typically the “scientists” involved in this study forgot to look at the most obvious thing. Do older people want to use new technology that much? So we can watch movies or play games on our mobile phones. Are we bovvered? Many of us who have been rounded out by leading full and interesting lives can think of a hundred better things to do than watch a movie on a three inch by two inch screen.

I cannot take pictures or record video clips with my mobile phone. Is my brain going or is the case simply that my excellent digital camera and state of the art camcorder perform those tasks far better than the phone ever could. So I cannot do those things simply because I am never likely to want to.

Similarly neither I nor my wife ever learned to set the VCR to record a week in advance. Are we sliding into dementia or are we simply not the type of people to get withdrawal symptoms if we miss an episode or two of a favourite programs. They will be repeated in a few months anyway.

So it is not a question of neurological degeneration because everybody is different in that respect, it is a question of how interested we are. QED.

The second story has slightly more sinister connotations. Scientists (again – its never philosophers or artists or historians causing trouble is it?) at the University of Kentucky, Louisville – now keep in mind this is in Kentucky; think fried chicken, bluegrass and red necks – claim to have found a link between eye colour and intelligence.
Blue eyed people, amazingly, are found to be more intelligent, ambitious and focused. Brown eyed people can run faster.
Nobody thought to mention in the context of this study that brown eyed people tend to have darker skin and curlier hair than blue eyed people.
My entirely unscientific observations on this issue, made throughout a long career in management consultancy is that if you tell people they are intelligent, creative and capable of more than they have ever given themselves credit for, they tend to aim higher and as a result grow in confidence and perform better. This approach works regardless of “eye” colour.
So let’s throw this one back at the boy scientists. What is it exactly that us alleged non scientists don’t understand? That ageism and racism are OK so long as they are backed up by properly conducted scientific studies?
You should bear that in mind when talking to young people about career options.

23 thoughts on “Science: A career for tossers?

  1. Reminds me of a study done by a medical scientist when I was a girl in uni long ago.

    This scientist believed he had discovered that some females exude a perfume which made their menstrual secretions less objectionable and that it was an evolutionary trait!!!

    He was just about to publish when he made this comment to a female colleague. She then pointed out to him that his methods of collection of samples had resulted in samples being collected from sanitary products which were themselves perfumed by the manufacturers!

    This eminent scientist alas had fallen foul of studying a subject he hadn’t the basic background knowledge for. Common sense is still the rarest commodity amongst intellectuals.


    1. That’s exactly the point. A few years ago “scientists” at Stockholm University discovered that when old people are in a hurry they move their legs faster. The world was gobsmacked.


  2. I think its time to dump the A level. If you choose sciences, you tend to have to dump everything else, aged sixteen. Perhaps that contributes to the narrow world view that you describe. Maybe kids should study “natural philosophy” so that along with the alchemy, they can appreciate philosophy, logic, mathematics, music..

    I’d like journalists to study the same though- that way they’d be able to immediately dismiss the kind of “science by press release” stories you mentioned above. If those scientists were able to produce truly worthwhile work, they wouldn’t need to self publicise


    1. What you describe is the education system of Grammar schools, popularly known as “the renaissance education” it aimes to provide a broad grounding so that people can specialise later.

      A lot of journos did get that education actually but unfortunately they now work for Murdoch and you know how it is, a story is a story – and Abi Titmuss has been very quiet this silly season.


  3. Similiar to a good, “self hating Jew” (translated: A Jew that hates Zionism and realises Judaism and Zionism are total opposites) I hate some scientists too, Their arrogance is monumental as is, similiar to the Jew that consciosuly or inadvertantly lends support to Zionism, their igorance.

    That some can discount spirituality, “know” how fast dinosaurs ran, that chickens used to reptiles which miracuolously {without God of course} sproputed feathers, and how they know everything about the unproveable origins of the Universe is a log of their stupidity, as is of course their claim “you dont understand, your not a scientist”

    These idiots have perverted the scientific method and have come to promote Occams razor as yielding absolutes.

    There are however very clever scientists, intelligent and wise, who realise that the more they approximately know, they more they realse what they dont know.

    This isn’t just the privilige of science, but also the conclusions from simple power of thought, a significant method of the great Greek philosophers. Missing of course from Western self gloryfiying history is the achievements the Arabs made under Islam who were able to adopt a greater degree of practical studies supplimentary to that of logical thought and contemplation. While on this Ask a westerner where the word Chemistry came from. They will say: “Ah! alchemy!” but their sealsed off, sterrilized and neutered brains will usually fail to realise that the origins go back further to the Arabs who called it ome Al- Kimyia, such is their porosity to western baloney.

    Sadly the intelligent and the wise are usually not the ones to frequent these “”Science” sites”

    From a god fearing Scientist who was sacked by ASDA.

    P.S. Ian… Heres something that might make you smile:
    Two supermarkets in e-mail probe


    1. Are you bitter about ASDA by any chance? 😉

      I can see I’m going to enjoy talking to you about the ancients, the Baghdad Batteries, possible anti – gravity engines (possibly) and such. Its a topic that fascinates me. I just wonder how much knowledge was lost when the Chistians burned the library at Alexandria.

      But I do like Occams razor though it proves nothing except that we can prove very little. And what keeps our feet on the ground because gravity is a scientific impossibility (unless the hippie graffito was right of course and “the earth sucks.”

      Enjoyed your comment.


      1. I’m not exactly sure where you’ve got the idea that gravity is a ‘scientific impossibility’. Maybe you’re referring to the tendency of some scientists (Dawkins) to dismiss that which they don’t understand but I don’t think gravity is something they’ve ever got away with dismissing, understanding it is widely thought (well, hoped) to be the key to the Unified Field Theory if only Quantum Gravity and large scale Gravitational Force can be united.

        I also don’t quite get where this guy’s going with evolution because what he’s described is pretty damn far from what actually happens with evolution… but then what do people with a lifetime of study and an extensive knowledge of cellular reproduction and mutation know? Talk about people out-of-hand dismissing what they don’t understand.


      2. Good point on gravity Paul and one we will deal with in another item when I prove Noam Chomsky’s assertion that “Everything you know is wrong.” That’s not you personally of course.

        Briefly, Newton describes gravity as an attractant force. But it can’t be, otherwise the moon would come crashing into the earth as earth hurtled towards the sun. These things would have happened long before there were humans of course, so unless we are all truly figments of our own imaginations in which case nothing matters, gravity cannot exist.

        Further gravity is held by convention to be the engine that powers the universe. So as any engine must have a net energy input, where is the infinite energy source that drives the planets and galaxies?

        Dawkins had not dismissed gravity as far as I know. I have and so have many others – because both Newton and Einstein are demonstrably wrong. So what keeps us on the ground, the atom’s electrons just the right distance from the nucleus and the earth just the right distance from the sun?

        Like I said, we will cover that another time.


      3. Well, let’s recreate Newton’s thought experiment.

        Drop a ball, it falls straight to the ground.

        Throw a ball, it falls to the ground, but a little bit further away.

        Throw a ball harder, it falls to the ground still further away.

        Now what happens if you throw a ball so hard, that the distance it takes to fall to the Earth is more than the curvature of the Earth?

        You end up with the “Douglas Adams” effect. It’s easy to fly, all you have to do is fall to the ground and miss.

        And of course, the proof is in the experience. Anyone with a decient timer, a ball, and high school maths can confirm Newton’s gravity. It’s not some occult thing and there isn’t anything funny going on. Anything that takes the place of Newton’s gravity has to make the same experimental predictions.


      4. Amusing, but there is a lot more to it. The question is not “what does gravity do?” but “what IS gravity.”

        As I said, that will be answered in a later article.


      5. I was referring more to Dawkin’s out-of-hand dismissal of any and all religions including his charming tendency to label all the religious as simpletons (I’m agnostic myself). He may be an excellent evolutionary biologist, but when it comes to theological matters he may as well have shit for brains.

        Regarding gravity, there are an innumerable number of forces at work which all depend on a number of factors but because of the two major factor involved here the moon doesn’t crash into the earth for the same reason it doesn’t shoot off into space; the inertia of the moon’s orbit around the earth is almost perfectly counterbalanced by the pull of the earth’s gravity. I say almost perfectly because regular measurements have shown that the moon is ever so slowly pulling away from the earth.

        Gravity isn’t something that’s been made up from a theory first, it’s something that was produced from the finest scientific tradition of observation followed by statistical analysis to see if a pattern emerged. The pattern that emerged can be most closely analogised by using magnets as they display similar behaviour (if you think of magnetic strength as density).

        In short:

        Any object with mass has gravity, including your fleshy self, the more mass the greater the gravity. This is probably a good thing as if you didn’t have your own less significant gravity nothing would be holding you to the earth’s surface, or the atmosphere for that matter. If you’re wondering why other people aren’t just gravitationally attracted to you, remember that the earth has a mass of about 5.9736 × 10^21 tonnes so your gravitational pull is negligible in comparison.

        Gravity diminishes over distance. When someone refers to a gravity well they refer to the distance from a body (planetary or otherwise) within which an object will inevitably be pulled towards the body if effort is not made to do otherwise. This is also why different object have to reach different altitudes to orbit at different speeds; too slow and the gravitational pull will be great enough to pull the object down to earth, too fast and it reaches escape velocity and is never seen again.

        As for what’s powering gravity, you’re looking at it as a constantly acting energistic force which, when used to power other actions, should lose some of its power unless this power is somehow replenished. In actual fact, gravity cannot be gained or lost, it can’t be transferred, any apparent gain in kinetic energy will have to be expended to escape the pull of any sufficiently large mass.

        I don’t know if this fits into your view of the universe with its closed system model of energy transfer. I’ll be interested to see your post about Special and General Relativity as both have been used as the basis for innumerable real-world applications including the moon-landings and geosynchronous satellite communications.


      6. Hi Paul,
        When Dawkins started to diss religion he was responding to the savaging he had been given by U.S. and Islamic fundies. Since then he has widened his scope because as the fundies have becvome more extreme, few of the more moderate religious leaders have tried to distance themselves from the lunacy. In the U.S. it is quite common for preachers to call upon their followers to kill people who work at abortion clinics. Seldom are any moderate Christian voices raised against this kind of thing.

        Now gravity. You have given me a lot of text book stuff. The question I pose is “what is gravity?” not what does it do. Your answert ought to be “I don’t know” because in truth nobody knows what gravity is. Oh we know what it does, although you’re pushing yoiur luck to say that gravity arose out of the finest scientific tradition of observation and analysis. The effect we call gravity existed long, long before it was observed. Your argument is basically “if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there, does it make a sound.”

        We observe the same moon as cavemen did and if we are honest with ourselves (and I am) we have no more idea than they why it hands in the sky.

        The key to understanding is not in science but in understanding our human selves. I recall a conversation I had with a very highly regarded doctor about ten years ago. He was chatting to me about how I was feeling and how my recovery from brain damage that should have left me a bear vegetable had astounded him and his colleagues. He said “we are starting to understand the human brain but have a long way to go, but the strangest thing we have learned is that the brain and the mind are not the same thing at all. That is why cases like yours are so fascinating.

        I’m not unique of course, but I and the hundreds like me still defy scientific explanation. And so “scientists” like the Bad Science Forum boys are quick to dismiss each individual recovery as coincidence and chance and close their eyes to the big picture. Recovery from serious brain damage is impossible so dismiss individual cases as delusional or fallacious. Well us recoverees are impossible but we’re here. Like gravity and magnetism. Both, though very real, demonstrable effects, are contrary to the laws of physics and thus scientifically impossible. And that is the point I have been trying to make, that we can only consider ourselves thinkers if we are open minded and prepared to admit we truly understand little of our world.

        You can’t have your cake and eat it. Either the universe exists according to physical law or it doesn’t. I’m not letting people say “yeah but, no but, yeah but, sometimes the laws of physics don’t apply so we can ignore them. That is not bad science, its bogus science. It is the science of making up your own rules as you go along.


      7. With regards to the fundies, there have been many Christian voices raised against such people, not least the Mexican Evangelicals and people like myself (before I lost all of my faith). The problem is that it’s not reported by the media and so people think it isn’t happening. Christians in this country are not only appalled but frightened by the South State fundies. It’s like the 7th July bombers, they were thrown out of the mosques, ostracised by the
        Muslim community, radicalised in gyms and there’s Tony “the bleedin’ saint” Blair asking in his best false sincerity why Muslim leaders hadn’t opposed these people.

        With regards to gravity, I was hardly denying that gravity has been around for some billions of years, just saying that what we know about gravity has been correlated through empirical methods of observation analysis. As I’ve already said, no-one knows what it is that powers gravity as we haven’t managed to marry quantum gravity to the larger scale effects, so you are entirely correct in stating that we don’t actually know what gravity is, just what it does. The only thing I am saying is that all that is written about gravity is from the school of observe, experiment, observe and that the vast majority of Einstein’s theories have been tested and shown to produce accurate predictions as to behaviour… not all of his theories have been tested just yet but there are satellites in orbit taking measurements.

        Of course, you’re right in that science still has a silly amount it doesn’t understand, on that I can’t help but agree (and I wonder if we’re not at cross purposes here), after eleven and a half years of psychiatric treatment I’m painfully aware of how little is known. On the other hand, I have been exposed to the good as well as the bad so I know that not all scientists are as arrogant as to claim anything without the proper proof (and I’ve met some damned arrogant scientists). But then the arrogant scientists don’t tend to be top of their field. It’s true that we don’t know how gravity can exist, but you seem to be disclaiming everything we do know about it because we don’t know everything about it.


      8. You gave my wife a laugh…

        “If you’re wondering why other people aren’t just gravitationally attracted to you”

        then she munbled something about “if I’d castrated you years ago I wonder would the attraction have stopped…”

        We probably are at cross purposes. My agenda is to bait those people who push the line that science has the answer to everything. By challenging the most fundamental assumptions of science it should be possible to interest people in real philosophical enquiry.

        Nobody truly understands what electricity is. We can observe what electricity does and harness it to do things that would have seemed magical to my grandparents generation, but we do not understand what it is.

        Similarly catalysts. Why does adding a very small amount of another metal to iron change the properties of that iron, though there is not enough of the additive for one atom to be attached to each molecule of the product. Why does passing car exhaust fumes over platignum neutralise some of the toxins while the catalyst retains its integrity.

        You don’t need to try to answer those, they point is though we can observe the effect and make use of the result, we don’t know why.

        Similarly with religion. lwtc, a scientist who has supported this thread, belives in a divine spirit. When he explains his belief I cannot argue, it makes sense. But if somebody tells me some old beardie sitting on a cloud is going to punish me for being a naughty boy I have to say “rubbish.”

        by saying gravity does not exist I am really turning the sophistry of some scientists back on them. You may recall my war with the “boy scientists” started from my simply asking why the medical establishment were afraid to allow open debate on the Autism / MMR alleged link.

        I was accused of “associative fallacy” and being misled by media hysteria, being emotional and not understanding “scientific thinking”. All of which showed in my critics the very faults they were accusing me of having. I never said there was a link. I did wind people up a lot though.
        I looked up the condition ADHD not long ago. Someting written by one of the parents at a support group struch me as presenting the case brilliantly in a few words. “The difficulty doctors with ADHD, ADD, Autism and other problems of modern life is due to their unscientific nature. There is no single, specific cause and so n o single theory can provide a cure.”

        Now once that idea is put across, we have a chance of getting somewhere. but academics will have to redefine what science is. And it will be a bugger getting them to admit they have been so wrong for so long.


        I want to kill this threasd now, you can mail me on


      9. Just a quickie…

        On gravity, it was said by Paul Duffy 25/08/07 @ 21:54: “an object will inevitably be pulled towards the body if effort is not made to do otherwise.”

        That means energy is being expended to make the two bodies come together – energy to produce the force. Where does that energy come from, and when they come together, as opposed to apart, their density is greater than when separated so the gravitational pull, on say a third object, is greater. Unless some undetectable particles are being shed when they come together, then aren’t they defying the 2nd law of thermodynamics as their entropy has decreased? {imagine they came together gently}.

        You see, using science to show science really hasn’t a clue is easy. The reason is because of the unfading limitations of man.

        Also noted was Ian’s unanswered question “What is gravity” as opposed to explaining gravity’s effects which really anyone can observe. All it takes is for someone to continually ask why about 5 or 6 times in succession to an answer to an initial question before we are unable to answer it and say either “because that’s how God made it” or “because that’s how it is” or “I don’t know” and this can be done on just about ANYTHING. This shows utterly limited science has made in unravelling the nature of the Universe.

        You have a simpler case with electrons of opposite spin. Why are their spins discrete? Why cant their energy relating to spin be ‘fuzzy’? [actually, being a wave, they must be, but we cant observe it or its the effects yet – Quantization only exists IMO because we are using quantum methods – a quantum filter if you like – to try and observe it so of course everything appears quantum. Quantum mechanics will eventually move to “quazi-quantum mechanics” – i.e. let me have the privilege to call it here on Ians Blog as “infinite mechanics”] Waved have no beginning, no end, just infinite levels of strength. We in the western Godless soulless world are enslaving our very being to the perceptions and all the limitedness those perceptions and sample. In western science, perception is King.


  4. One of the ‘boy scientists from Bad science’ here.

    Nicky – it seems a bit harsh to pick two bits of bad science (there is plenty more, precisely what bad science and other anti quackery sites try to expose) and then use that as a the basis for a critique of scientists generally, or the existence of some sort of nebulous general conspiracy amongst scientists to do harm or wield power over non-scientists.

    I thought the discussion and comments, with a few exceptions, on the MMR thread were very considered and polite.

    Scientists to not claim to have a monopoly on absolute truth – that is what religion does. ‘Science’ is merely about testing theories against observable evidence. ‘Scientists’ come up with the theories and then they or their colleagues collect the evidence top test them. There are good ones and bad ones – just as there are good and bad, police, politicians, engineers etc.

    The scientific community more broadly has a series of checks and balances for testing claims made by other scientists. The whole scientific establishment is about trying to falsify theories. If they prove immune to this they gain in strength, if not they are rejected. There are incidences of faked results, corruption, bad science, and real harm done under the banner of science – but in most cases these are exposed by others in the community.


    1. Ah, those polite and considerted responses to a comment I had not actually made. Thanks for reminding me.

      You and your chums will have to look in if lwtc and I get this theme of what the ancients knew to take off and fly. You se one of the things that gets up my nose is all the snide references to magical thinking and superstition. In fact it is science that is prone to magical thinking. I already mentioned gravity in an earlier comment. There is a list of “scientific principles” than can similarly be categorised as magic and superstition because they are either impossible or else we have totally misunderstood the nature of our universe.

      Interesting eh?


  5. ‘Science’ is merely about testing theories against observable evidence.

    Correction Science SHOULD be about testing theories against observable evidence, but it becoming less and less so. “Popular” science as parroted by the BBC and other junk science publications which come out almost daily with headlines like “New research suggests cabbage eaters COULD be at greater risk of cancer than non cabbage eaters” and then we have the jewel in the crown – Spun Darwinsisn.

    Scientists in their ridiculous arrogance get the smallest bit of SUGGESTIVE information and jump the most fantastical claims, and as speaking from experience from my time as a PhD student in UMIST, do so often in isolation of other branches in science. Around about the same time UK Universities were being heavily criticised for junk results, correctly mentioned by steve is largely a result of the pressures that come with commercialization of education.

    Science in recent times has become corrupted with the adoption of popularism because it flirts heavily with Sci-fi and also because it has to adopt ‘trendyism’ – t-shirts of Einstein sticking his tongue out come instantly to mind.

    Steve sounds like he’s a scientist with a bit more integrity than many others, but I caution from my perception is that a LOT of junk still flies under the radar.


    1. Steve did actually leave one of the more “polite and considered” responses on the earlier thread he referred to. Unfortunately by the time I got to him I had morphed into Conan the Barbarian and was enjoying myself.


  6. Bitter? Flabbergasted, Amused, Unsure, Hollow and Isolated, yes, but not bitter. They did me a favour at the time by employing me, I’ve always been grateful for that, and they did me another favour be sacking me. I’m grateful for that too.

    I was also sacked by a small computer store near Stockport, the bosses of which had had a number of other businesses go bankrupt, yet strangely enough, they were never short of expecsive looking cars and clothes or money to spend on the latest new “business”. I was sacked from there becasue I one day knocked on the one of the Managers doors and explained to him the many serious economic flaws in the business operations. I was working many 18hr days, 12hrs min, and they diddled me out of a few weeks pay. I distinctly got the impression that the shop floor crew knew of my sacking even before I did, and now that I think of it, wonder if they weren’t involved setting up the official reason whay I got sacked. Now THAT one made me bitter. But Life has moved on a long say since then.


    1. Ah. It was just that you had mentioned it before.

      As a management consultant I can help you understand how business works. The basic underpinning philosophy of modern business (which is all run by accountants of course) is: if it makes any kind of sense we will not do it.

      Only to an accountant would it make sense to sack a worker paid £8 per hour and replace them with someone from an agency who costs £18 per hour.

      Similarly if your credit card limit is increased by £2k and you go out and book a holiday, buy a new hi fi and TV and a few other goodies until your new limit is maxed out, how can the bank be £2k richer because you owe them money you haven’t got? But that is the principle the global economy works on.

      BTW the reason you were sacked from ASDA and the other place is because you were cleverer than your bosses. It is never given as the reason for sacking anybody but is the most common actual reason. Trust me, I’m a management consultant – or rather I was.


  7. Thing is, I was honest with them at the beginning, telling them that I was studying for my PhD at the time and I was taking the job as extra income. – I was desperately poor at the time. (Actually I am poorer now – “bought” a house, as I owe far more money, but my credit scope has been extended and the rate fixed, allowing me {in theory} to indulge in some materialism and believe I will be able to pay it off one day).

    But I think my boss was never so keen on me, perhaps as you say because she felt intellectually inferior, even though I deliberately didn’t do anything to give that impression. Anyway, I mentioned it before because it amuses me no end when tell people that I got sacked as a shelf stacker for perhaps, it’s wee element of surrealism.

    I’ve always believed that gravity is the force of forces even though in physics it’s associated with what’s called “the weak force”. To which I say and the meek will inherit the earth.

    Ian, although you may not have a Doctorate of Philosophy in physics, they you well may understand the physical nature of the earth a lot more than someone with letters in physics. The valiant attempt to explain why the earth doesn’t fall into the sun is exemplary of the way Physicists behave. They will keep giving you a simple model until your happy but this is a falsehood as its relatively easy to identify a problem with the simple model and then in the end we realise that the models are all crap actually and that we are ignorant. I’m with Cratylus on all this. We cant know everything about anything. All we can do is adopt a patchwork model which will satisfy our degree of questioning at the time, all the while we delude ourselves into thinking out perceptions of the ‘thing’ is its actual reality.

    This is why Occams razor has become elevated to the status of Divine law by Physicists and scientists in general because it gives us the illusion we want to see. They believe the simplest answer IS the answer when in actual fact, it is NEVER the answer.

    Occams razor is a shield with which we comfort ourselves in our own ignorance, and when we live the lie, we become hugely arrogant.


    1. I used the earth / sun example because it is one that physicists use to prove gravity. “Otherwise the Earth would float free in space.” We know, or have a fair idea that the planet stays in position because its orbit falls in the distance range from the sun where the attractant and repellant forces are balanced. But what those forces are is a mystery.

      Occam’s razor is misunderstood in two ways. First, “scientists” like to use the “most simple answer” interpretation, but the older one, fashionable when I was at school goes “when you have eliminated all the possibilities the answer must be the impossible.” Which is very useful to occultists and fiction writers.

      The real translation from Medieval Latin or Norman French, whatever language Occam thought in goes: “when all possibilities have been eliminated the answer must be the possibility that was not considered.”

      Which is very different. The razor is very useful againt “correlation does not prove causation” which is true so long as we remember it does not prove anything at all.

      I’ll get in touch offline.


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