Ideals before infants

The threat to lace infant formula with 1080 could be a hoax.

But it could be real.

There are eco-terrorists.

They are the rabid greens (and please note the small g) who would put their ideals before infants, the ones who put people’s place in the world well below that of anything and everything they consider natural.

They are the ones who would think nothing of terrifying parents and sabotaging our dairy trade. Given their antipathy towards dairying, they’d probably consider damaging it a win.

What the people behind this bizarre blackmail attempt don’t understand is that 1080 is the only tool we have to control the pests which endanger our native flora and fauna and carry diseases, including TB, which can endanger domestic animals and people.

Environment Commissioner Jan Wright’s report into 1080 accepted that it should not be banned:

 Dr Wright recommends against a moratorium on 1080 citing the damage that would be done to native forests and animals if such a ban went ahead.

“Possums, rats and stoats are chewing up our forests to the point that we are only a generation away from seeing regional extinctions of kiwis and other native species where no pest control is carried out.

“There are other pest control methods that are more suitable than 1080 in certain circumstances but on much of our conservation land there is currently nothing else that will effectively kill possums, rats and stoats.

“While there may be an alternative to 1080 one day, if we want to keep our  forests for future generations we simply cannot afford to stop using 1080. Time is not a luxury we have.

“So many of our native forests, birds, reptiles and insects are unlike those found anywhere else in the world and form a distinct part of our identity. It would be a travesty to allow these to disappear.” . . .

It is not used lightly but there are places where other methods of extermination are impossible.

Real greenies understand that and condone its use because, while far from perfect, it is better than allowing pests destroy forests and the native wild life which lives there.

How ironic if the people behind this bizarre blackmail attempt are serious and don’t understand that banning 1080 would do far more harm than the poison does.

 

65 Responses to Ideals before infants

  1. robertguyton says:

    “There are eco-terrorists.
    They are the rabid greens”

    Didn’t take long, Ele. Shameful but expected.

    There are hunters who are vocally anti-1080.
    Are they “eco-terrorists”?
    There are farmers who are vocally anti-1080.
    Are they “eco-terrorists”?

    One thing we know for sure is, the blackmailer was anonymous.
    Anonymous.
    I’ve long warned you all here of those who hide behind anonymity.
    And I was right.
    I have my suspicions.
    There’s an specifically anti-1080 political party, isn’t there?

  2. Andrei says:

    People always come first.

    Human rights above all else

    Anybody who would sacrifice innocent people to advance a political agendas are beneath contempt

  3. Andrei says:

    Actually Robert for once in life you are right

    This paragraph in particular does demonstrate blind prejudice and unwarranted assumptions

    They are the rabid greens (and please note the small g) who would put their ideals before infants, the ones who put people’s place in the world well below that of anything and everything they consider natural.

  4. homepaddock says:

    Andrei and Robert I am referring to the people behind the threat not everyone who objects to 1080.

    Most people who oppose its use stay within the law.

  5. Andrei says:

    Ele you made the assumption that the people behind this subscribe to the green philosophy

    As Robert pointed out that may not be so, they may have a different agenda altogether or they may be nothing but plain old mischief makers with no real agenda at all other than causing upset

  6. Andrei says:

    To be fair to you Ele I will confess that I made the same assumption until Robert opened my eyes to it

    Though I have always been cognisant of the fact that people whose main motivation is trouble making often attach themselves to a cause to lend some sort of quasi legitimacy to their actions

  7. Gravedodger. says:

    Lets hope the cretin who is behind it is exposed and humiliated whoever it is.

  8. Andrei says:

    Dave when the mutilated body of a dead prostitute is fished out of the Avon River in Christchurch I feel sick to the stomach, even though I never knew her, met or or know anyone who ever did and as a Nation we are diminished by this.

    When a tree is felled to make way for homes for people who need a roof over their head to live in, well that actually happens every day.

    The trees will be felled, milled and used to make fine furniture and many people will be able to feed their families on the proceeds.

    I doubt I ever saw these trees and if I did I don’t recall so the benefits on the face of it outweigh the negatives

  9. sjlees says:

    Divide and conquer was always the motto of those trying to give a bad name to people who disagree with controversial and reckless action. By doing so they do however achieve a certain degree of moderation.

    To accuse others of ‘eco-terrorism’ has been a long held maxim of farming lobbies and the National Party since GE activists first spoke of the health issues surrounding GE food and now it raises its ugly head again in a new climate of ‘fear’. John Key’s offensive ‘strategy’ to group individuals aiming to preserve and improve what is left of our environment, farmland and potential clean food production is an assault to all our futures.

    This current threat to the infant milk supply is almost certainly the act of an individual who is misguided and desperate and should be seen and described as such, rather than lumping together anyone who cares about a future for all of our children.

    I joined the 1080 Party at the last election because I don’t believe in the indiscriminate use of poisons and would never consider subjecting any of the community to toxic compounds. This is however the situation with our farming industry’s widespread use of pesticides.

  10. homepaddock says:

    I have not accused everyone who is against 1080 of eco-terrorism. My comments refer to whoever is behind this criminal threat.

    the anti-1080 Party is appalled by the threat. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/anti-1080-campaigner-shocked-appalled-gutted-gobsmacked-threat-6252408

    I don’t agree with those who want i1080 banned but am not suggesting all of them are eco-terrorists.

    It this isn’t a hoax then whoever is/are undertaking eco-terrorism.

    I understand that 1080 does damage, but the science supports its use as the only effective way to kill pests in some areas.

  11. Gravedodger. says:

    I am an undisputable fan of 1080, that said I wish we did not have to use it and I get into many heated discussions on river banks. This morning was yet another of those when a rather dogmatic American who clearly by his equipment and travel schedule had little regard for the planet while indulging himself.

    My preferred discussion mo is to inquire if the anti 1080 crusader has had any direct involvement in its use, the reasons for its use and the outcomes, then my position prevails as I have direct observed knowledge of the way fauna, birdlife and benefits rapidly outweigh the acknowledged down side effects.
    I do not change their rather shallow position but they are usually silenced by my arguments.

    Just as in any war casualties are regrettable in the extreme until the alternatives are considered.
    The survival of our bush and its inhabitants both introduced and native are threatened with devastation from possums, rats, stoats rabbits and deer as they are the predators with no predator sufficiently threatening them.

  12. robertguyton says:

    The anonymous (how I loathe “anonymous”, even when “anonymous” cloaks themselves in a fake name, like “Jabba” or “Mr E”) letter-writer clearly feels very strongly about 1080, as do many non-greeny farmers, fishermen and hunters. “Anonymous” has chosen the wrong path, I believe, in his/her/their (bet you’re all thinking “anonymous” is male) attempts to have 1080 drops stopped., but “anonymous”‘s actions must be seen as the logical result of New Zealand’s fondness for using chemical toxins to “control” organisms we don’t like. Where anti-biotic chemicals are widely used, anti-anti-biotic activists are bound to appear. Makes sense, doesn’t it.

  13. robertguyton says:

    “possums, rats, stoats rabbits and deer”

    Gravedodger – what are these “organisms” here in NZ?

  14. JC says:

    RG,

    Let me tell you a little story about “Anonymous” or pen names on the net..

    According to Google I have written 16,000 posts to the newsgroups under my full name and with email address. At one point I berated a guy I was arguing with because he used a pen name and several people politely responded on his behalf with three main reasons for anonymity..

    1. Most people work for employers and have families to support, if their employer read some of their comments and didn’t like them these people could get the sack.

    2. Some people are private contractors and forthright opinions on the Net might put off prospective clients with a different view or political allegience.. result loss of work.

    3. There were a number of instances where people using their real names were stalked and the stalkers gleefully reported on their movements for days at a time and were vulnerable to personal attack.. on several occasions the children were followed and their movements reported. I’m not aware of it here but overseas people using their real names have been stalked and murdered by online enemies.

    When all this was explained to me I realised I was being arrogant about my so called honesty in using my real name and when I got onto blogs I used just my initials.. after all, its what you say that counts, not your name.

    JC

  15. TraceyS says:

    “possums, rats, stoats rabbits and deer”

    Gravedodger – what are these “organisms” here in NZ?

    They’re mammals Robert.

  16. robertguyton says:

    “I realised I was being arrogant about my so called honesty in using my real name”

    Your “so called” honesty in using your real name?

    You weren’t being honest by using your real name, JC?
    really??????

    The letter-writer is a member of the group of people who hide behind anonymity, yes?
    We have anonymous commenters here on Homepaddock. They have commonality with the blackmailer, there’s no denying.
    “Mr E”? “Jabba” “Name Withheld”? Et al?

  17. robertguyton says:

    True, Tracey. I meant, “why”. My spell-checky-thing is un-trustworthy.

  18. TraceyS says:

    JC at 4:32pm. I totally agree. And would add that there are a couple of downsides to commenting under a pseudonym:

    1. Anyone else could comment as “TraceyS”, pretending to be me, and misrepresenting my views to those whom I have chosen to know my identity (because I trust them). Of course I could deny it was me but sometimes the damage can already be done. I’m actually pleasantly surprised that this hasn’t already happened. Not here anyway. But it could have on another blog and I wouldn’t necessarily be aware of it.

    2. I could contribute a lot more to this topic’s discussion if I was prepared to identify myself to everyone. It is somewhat frustrating not to be able to do participate fully. There are some things I am itching to say. But that’s the consequences of my choice not to comment under my name. So I will remain frustrated until I feel that there would be no negative consequences for me or my family from doing otherwise.

  19. robertguyton says:

    I’m the bravest of you all then. Dave Kennedy’s as brave as I am, of course.
    What’s wrong with the rest of you?

  20. TraceyS says:

    Try proofreading you old goose.

    I’m sick of reading your comment that don’t make sense because of missing or wrong words.

    Forgive my directness.

  21. TraceyS says:

    *comments* there certainly has been more than one!

  22. robertguyton says:

    Tracey@5:40 – you mean JC?

  23. Mr E says:

    Robert,
    You said:
    “(how I loathe “anonymous”, even when “anonymous” cloaks themselves in a fake name, like “Jabba” or “Mr E”) ”

    What about “Mr G”? Loathsome?

  24. JC says:

    “You weren’t being honest by using your real name, JC?
    really??????”

    Yes really.

    I was, and you are claiming an authority and honour of name and denigrating any other opinion based on pen names.

    Which brings to mind an old saying particularly applying to Greens..

    “The more he proclaimed his honour
    The faster we counted our spoons”

    JC

  25. RBG says:

    As one of the anonymous commenters here I object to you saying that I (or the others) have commonality with the blackmailer. It seems to me that you, Robert Guyton, do not appreciate the priviledged position you are in, that’s quite common in people who occupy positions of priviledge, they are blind to other’s situations and unfairly condemn them. I’m guessing you do not have to keep an employer happy to keep a job to pay the mortgage? You don’t occupy any moral high ground, you are just lucky that you can say what you like without consequences, so would you just STFU about anonymous commenters and for good measure, apologise to those of us who have nothing in common with the deluded arsehole who has made the blackmail threats.

  26. robertguyton says:

    “Mr G”, loathsome, Mr E? Of course not. Mr G was an amusing construct that was clearly me, as you and anyone else interested would know. Nothing faintly anonymous about “Mr G”. As you well know. Mr E, otoh, is a hide-behind nom-de-plume used to afford you anonymity, such as the 1080 letter-writer effected. You and “he” have a commonality of practice.

  27. robertguyton says:

    We all have something in common with every other person, RGB.

  28. Mr E says:

    It was not clear to many who Mr G was for quite some time. And irregular or new visitors would unlikely have any idea who Mr G was. Therefore it was a hide behind name.
    That considered, I don’t loathe you for having a hide behind name Robert. I find it insignificant and I care not. I also care not for the connection it makes with the 1080 letter writer.

  29. TraceyS says:

    The stark difference which divides the behaviour of the 1080 letter writer and that of nom-de-plume commenters is that people here do actually own their comments and they are available to respond to questions and justify what they are saying. That is as true of RGB as it is of me – even though we are often in total disagreement. How on earth can you overlook such as important distinction Robert?

    It’s odd that you did not choose to compare the 1080 letter writer to say, Rawshark, or perhaps yourself when you have been an “anonymous” commenter in the past (as you have admitted). Or perhaps another comparison between yourself, as a self-confessed shit-stirrer, and that of this threat-maker who has, judging by the news tonight, created significant mayhem and with more to come?

    Why not these comparisons I wonder? Rather selective aren’t you?

  30. TraceyS says:

    ““anonymous”‘s actions must be seen as the logical result of New Zealand’s fondness for using chemical toxins to “control” organisms we don’t like.”

    must be seen?”

    Must?

    Really?

    Will the “logical result” of my fondness for debating with you be a terrible threat? You have already written “be afraid, be very afraid” and not explained exactly what you meant by those words.

    Must the logical result of my fondness for using chemical herbicide to control invasive gorse on our property be that someone in disagreement with my methods threatens to shoot our stock or burn our woolshed down?

    That’s applying your so-called “logic” – that if something is done that other’s don’t like the logical result is a terrible threat.

    Logic is “reasoned thought or argument, as distinguished from irrationality”. How can you suggest logic as a means for explaining the irrational behavior of this threat-maker?

    I have to say that it bothers me someone in a position of public influence would make such a stupid statement.

  31. TraceyS says:

    RBG to Robert:

    “You don’t occupy any moral high ground…”

    Truer words were never written!

    “just STFU…”

    Better advice was never given!

  32. Dave Kennedy says:

    The conversation here is very concerning because it reflects a growing culture in New Zealand that free speech isn’t acceptable.

    As stated here many times, those who have ‘skin in the game’ should have valuable input to any discussion or decision that impacts on them. Most state servants now have gagging clauses so that they can’t question Government policy they deem to have flaws. The has been a growing culture of bullying management in Ministries and government departments. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7664815/Bullying-rife-in-public-service-survey

    Teachers are going to have a code of conduct slapped on them that will replace their professional ethics, so they will have to put Government policy before the welfare of children or their relationship with families. They will shift from being servants of the public to servants of the state.

    Employees here say they could lose their job if their employer learned of their political opinions. Really? This is shocking.

    A UN report to the NZ Government contains 155 human rights recommendations (up 64 from four years before). It seems that good process is considered annoying ‘chit chat’ and much legislation passed under this Government involves the removal of basic human rights. http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/chris-finlayson-apologises-for-chit-chat-comment-2014112718#axzz3Tymg1mCg

    I can understand the need for political neutrality in some jobs but surely the past duty of government departments to provide ‘free and frank’ advice was necessary to ensure safe decisions?

    This is a sad country indeed if someone can’t reasonably express a concern about the government or have a political view without fearing for their jobs or the welfare of their families.

  33. RBG says:

    Dave, as yet an employer in New Zealand can’t sack someone for their political views. My co workers know I’m a Green, but I do not bring politics into the workplace. I have a good friend who does freelance contract work in a very tight market who does need to keep quiet about her views as she doesn’t want anything affecting her chances of work. TraceyS, you ignore many of my questions to you and I only want Robert to STFU about anonymity.

  34. robertguyton says:

    “How can you suggest logic as a means for explaining the irrational behavior of this threat-maker?”
    Because logic is the tool used to explain things, Tracey.
    I would suggest using logic in many, many situations. I’m not a fan of using “illogic” to address questions, as you seem to be.

  35. Dave Kennedy says:

    RBG, When I was teaching it was widely known that I was a Green and I still expressed my views in letters to the paper etc under my own name. However I did not push my political views in the classroom as I honoured our code of ethics. I can understand some circumstances where it may be commercially sensible to keep ones personal views secret but I have difficulty with why so many here feel that is necessary. More and more people I know of are fearful of standing up for things that they believe in because they fear the consequences.

    While it is illegal to sack someone because of their political beliefs I know it still happens. Many employers get away with a lot now and if someone is on a casual contract or zero hours one the employer doesn’t have to state why they are not giving someone work. In the state service’s bulling culture some find that promotions don’t occur if they provide free and frank advice that the government doesn’t want to hear.

  36. farmerbraun says:

    He who pays the piper calls the tune, right Dave?

  37. farmerbraun says:

    You mean that you identify with the Green Party Dave.
    Whereas embracing sustainability is something that many people do: it is in no way political.

  38. robertguyton says:

    I’m a lower-case g, green councillor clearly and vocally pro-environment and I’ve not been sacked 🙂 In fact, I’ve been voted in twice down here in conservative Southland – what gives???

  39. Dave Kennedy says:

    Farmerbraun, what I can’t understand is why so many here feel that they must keep their identity secret when they express their views. As you say generally Green policy promotes sustainability and human rights and should not be controversial but RBG obviously feels the need to keep her identity secret when sharing her thoughts and so do most others. I just struggle to appreciate how we can have a political environment where stating a viewpoint on a issue can threaten ones livelihood. In the end discussing any view related to social or economic policy should be regarded as valuable if done so in an informed and polite way.

    The only times when I could see an issue is when someone expresses a view that is discriminatory or immoral or perhaps is expressed in a highly aggressive way. Perhaps some here like to remain anonymous so that they can verbally abuse those he disagrees with with no comeback. I know of a right-wing blogger in Invercargill who can be very abusive on his blog but is very pleasant and gentlemanly in person. I find this approach dishonest and hypocritical.

    I guess there is another reason people may like to remain annonymous, they don’t want it known they are commenting during work hours 😉

  40. Mr E says:

    Dave said this:

    Employees here say they could lose their job if their employer learned of their political opinions. Really? This is shocking.

    In a previous thread back in January Robert said this:

    “Looking further back, your willingness to gloat over and encourage the spreading of malicious gossip was worse than that, it was disgraceful, in my opinion. I can confidently bring that issue up, now that the originator of the claim has been forced to resign his position in the education world, along with those who assisted him in causing me discomfort, and the Ministry official I tasked with clearing my name and reputation has done just that. That you, Ol FakEe and others here revelled in slinging muck didn’t surprise me at all and colours my every conversation with you. I know what depths you will sink to and I have a long memory.”

    When I asked him what he was talking about he said this:

    ‘If you can’t remember, I’ll withdraw my charge and consider it forgotten. ‘

    https://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/saturday-soapbox-106/#comments

  41. Dave Kennedy says:

    Oops again, “those they disagree with” second para.

  42. Mr E says:

    “Perhaps some here like to remain anonymous so that they can verbally abuse those he disagrees with with no comeback. I know of a right-wing blogger in Invercargill who can be very abusive on his blog but is very pleasant and gentlemanly in person. I find this approach dishonest and hypocritical. ”

    Is that blogger anonymous Dave?

  43. Mr E says:

    Dave,
    Can you please explain to me why you sometimes run by the name ‘bsprout’?

  44. robertguyton says:

    Waaaay off topic, you two. Respect for Ele please. She’s made it very clear those who don’t keep to the topic will have their comments deleted. Mr E, whoever you are, you are the worst. It’s ungentlemanly and disrespectful to Ele, I’m sure everyone here will agree.

  45. Mr E says:

    Infact on the March 2, 2015 at 10:33 PM – the name bsprout was used on a blog.

    Why is this Dave?

  46. Mr E says:

    You don’t want any comment about anonymity Robert? You think that is way off topic?

    Did you read your comment at March 11, 2015 at 3:17 pm?

    Dave and you have raised why anonymity exists. Where it has come from. You made a connection between the Anonymous commenters here and the 1080 letter writer. My comment is on that topic.

    If you think it is off topic – you must be guilty too? Aren’t you on your last warning?

  47. Dave Kennedy says:

    Mr E good questions. The blogger I referred to does not openly reveal his real identity. I began my blog under bsprout because many political bloggers appeared to use a pseudonym and it became my name when commenting. On later reflection I decided that it would be more honest to be open about who I was so that people knew my background and the context and perspectives I brought to my views.

  48. Mr E says:

    Dave – the identity “bsprout” was used but days ago. In that scenario could this be said ” does not openly reveal his real identity”

  49. TraceyS says:

    “Teachers are going to have a code of conduct…”

    Oh how terrible! How can we let this happen? This is just disgraceful!

    A code of conduct of all things! Why, teachers will be equal in this respect with almost all other workers – even those at the very bottom. How can you let this happen Dave? Hopefully you will fight it tooth and nail!

  50. robertguyton says:

    Yes, Mr pEdantic, we are all off-topic. Respecting Ele’s wishes, as I do, I politely remind you to do the same. It would be gentlemanly to return to the topic and leave this old chestnut alone. I’m surprised you cannot – like poking a hole in your tooth with your tongue, over and over, I suppose. Let’s get back to the topic, chaps, and show our respect to Ele.

  51. TraceyS says:

    RBG, advice is just that – advice. Robert is free to take it or leave it. And I was only referring to the anonymity matter as well.

    Sorry about not answering all of your questions. I just haven’t had the time.

  52. robertguyton says:

    Look, let’s just leave the anonymity issue for another time. It’s clear that hiding behind anonymity was a contributing factor in the 1080 milk scare and that hiding behind a fake name is a factor in many worrying behaviours, but it’s not the topic of this thread. I can sense Ele’s annoyance at those who persist in off-topic discussions, so let’s drop this whole anonymous thing, concerning though it is.

  53. Mr E says:

    It is entertaining to see you Robert desperately trying to peddle out of a discussion you supported if not raised on anonymity.

    I do agree with you though – we should move on. Discussions on anonymity are boring and in this thread I think those discussions are like unwanted graffiti on a wall. Ugly, and irritating to all but the artist.

  54. Dave Kennedy says:

    Tracey, most professionals (lawyers, doctors etc) have a code of ethics so that they can use their professional judgment in complex situations. There is a difference between being a professional and a technician as a technicians work is highly directed and prescribed, while professionals must be flexible in meeting the needs of those they serve. A code of conduct is highly prescriptive and removes the ability of a professional to use their knowledge and training to address highly complex situations. Like doctors and lawyers there needs to be a level of trust when teachers work with parents and children so that their interests are paramount and confidentiality is appropriately ensured.

    If you look at professional codes of ethics and compare them with codes of conduct you will see that codes of ethics actually have a higher bar and greater expectations than codes of conduct do.

  55. robertguyton says:

    Good decision, Mr e.

  56. Mr E says:

    Yes lets talk about code of conducts instead.
    Dave,
    Can you tell me any Govt departments that don’t have code of conduct requirements?
    Robert,
    Do you find your council code of conduct restrictive?

  57. TraceyS says:

    Has the discussion really gone off topic? The post is titled “Ideals before Infants”. Some commenters have expressed ideals and others acted like infants.

    🙂

  58. Mr E says:

    Tracey,
    BRILLIANT!

  59. Dave Kennedy says:

    Me E you obviously don’t think teachers should be regarded the same as other professionals who operate under a code of ethics instead. Do you think a teacher is like a doctor and put the needs of the student first or are they answerable to the Government first? This is an important distinction. A lawyer would always represent their client as the first priority, the doctor is the same with patients and I would always put meeting the needs and health and welfare of students first.

  60. robertguyton says:

    Code of Conduct?
    We have a Code of Conduct?

    Can’t stay on topic to save yourself, can you Mr E!
    I’m surprised Ele hasn’t asked you to pack up your Thomas the Tank Engine lunch-box, fold up your morning’s finger-painting masterpiece and toddle off home (just building on Tracey’s BRILLIANT comment, which I thought very unfair on you, Mr E) 🙂

  61. TraceyS says:

    Dave are you aware that it’s a good employer practice to have a workplace code of conduct in place? It lets employees know what is regarded as serious misconduct and serious misconduct. It’s only fair that employees be made aware of these definitions – and teachers are employees.

    Most school boards would have a code of conduct covering all employees, including teachers. A board of trustees is certainly well within its rights, as an employer, to have a code of conduct. I think it’s great that there will be a common code of conduct for teachers that runs consistent across all schools. In fact, it is an excellent idea.

    I certainly hope that my doctor, lawyer, accountant, and so on all have codes of conduct which bind them. In fact, I sure that they all will.

    Perhaps you can answer this question, Dave. What do you expect will be in the code of conduct that prevents teachers putting their student’s needs and welfare first?

  62. TraceyS says:

    Mr E – thanks.

  63. Mr E says:

    “Me E you obviously don’t think teachers should be ………..etc”

    What is obvious, is my objection to your conversation obstruction, when you apparently obliviously propose opposition opinions and attribute them to me. Obviously. Phew that was hard to get out.

    Robert. The code of conduct is on page 25 of the Local Governance Statement. Don’t ever say I’m not helpful.

  64. robertguyton says:

    I’ll give Ali a copy, thanks, E.

  65. Dave Kennedy says:

    Apologies Mr E I had assumed that you were following Tracey’s line of reasoning and that was unfair. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: