James McGrath, Neil Godfrey, and Mythicism: Once More Into the Fray

Let me preface this by stating clearly and directly that everyone, regardless of who you are or what you study, has a bias towards the evidence.  This includes me, this includes Godfrey, this includes James McGrath.  We all are approaching the evidence from a position of bias.  It is the goal of each of us–at least I know it is for me and it should be for everyone else–to limit the effect of that bias upon our conclusions.  We do this by trying to come up with sound methodology and we try to apply this methodology rigorously and critically, even against our own conclusions (at least we should), so that we can come up with an interpretation of the evidence that is as free of our own will as we can.

First, my biases: I am a humanist, but I am also a metaphysical naturalist and I see the world through a secular lens.  I am critical of the Biblical narratives, though I appreciate them and have a fond respect for their history and place in that diachronic scale, but I have no vested interest in the narratives being true.  I lean towards a mythical figure of Jesus (that is to say, I doubt such a figure existed historically), but I am agnostic on the question since I don’t believe an answer can be found just yet.  But even if it turned out that the figure of Jesus was historical, it would change nothing for me.  He would still be that guy (no, not that guy) who died a few thousand years ago.  It might change how I evaluate the New Testament (in that I would have to reconsider the value of Paul’s letters towards the question of a historical Jesus) but such occurrences happen often in scholarship (I am constantly adjusting my interpretation of the evidence based upon new data–even if it conflicts against opinions I have held for a while).  So I really have no bias at all towards the idea that Jesus was a mythical construct.  Myth or historical fact, it troubles me not.  I just happen to feel that the evidence may more strongly weigh down on this side of the debate.

I am not so sure that the same can be said for either James McGrath or Neil Godfrey.  This troubles me because they have both been at each others throats now going on three or more years.   They continue to talk past each other, producing a dialogue which is full of vitriol.  It is neither helpful not productive.  I sit back and watch at a distant and shake my head.  Both are committing errors that need to be rectified if this slugging match between them has hopes of turning into anything fruitful.

Neil is constantly coming down upon James’ credibility as a scholar and his credentials.  He attacks James personally and then gets upset when James does the same.   He is not always cordial, he can be careless when making points, or relies too much on his own wit without taking into consideration how his post will come across.  But more than this I believe that Neil has an emotional investment in the ahistorical arguments of the figure of Jesus.

I believe strongly that this is the case; Neil gets way too defensive when James comes after him and forgets his sense of humor.  That to me is indicative of a person who has too much of himself involved in his perspectives.  I can completely relate because I used to live in Neil’s shoes (on this issue, I mean).  There was a time when I was emotionally invested in the arguments against historicity.  It wasn’t that I was ignorant (much), but I failed to see the larger picture.  There is a point when one has to pick their battles and I was far, far too ideological for my own good.  Neil might not see this in himself, and he might disagree with me, but the evidence really isn’t that conclusively in favor of his arguments (even if I think he often makes strong arguments that fall upon deaf ears).

But Neil isn’t the only one responsible for this failed dialogue.  James has his own share of problems that I believe desperately need to be addressed.  And I want to be clear here: I have nothing but respect for both parties.  I respect Neil for his forthrightness, that he is well-read, and for his clarity (though it is extremely under-appreciated by others) and I respect James on multiple levels–as a blogger, a scholar who has earned his credentials and his position, and as a person I consider a friend.

But perhaps that is why I am so disappointed.  James is the professional–a point he continually makes.  We can almost forgive Neil for his antagonism; he is not in the guild.  But James is, and people look to him as an authority.  As a professional he should be taking more of a leadership role in these conversations; unfortunately at times–and I hope he takes what I’m saying and merely a gentle nod and not as an attack–James came come across immature.  His comments can be snide, sarcastic, antagonistic, petty, and unreasonable.  This is expected by those who are untrained and outside the Academy, but we ask more of our own.  There are examples of this throughout his blog on these subjects.

First and most importantly, James makes constant comparisons between creationism and mythicism, but he does so falsely.  I suspect that most of this is antagonism and a lot of tongue-in-cheek.  But if any of his comparisons are said in seriousness, he is patently wrong. For starters, comparing a hard science which is deductive to a field like history where the evidence is extremely interpretive and inductive is just plain silly.  The evidence for the figure of Jesus is scarce and what we have is limited to ones evaluation of the data.  A hard science like evolutionary biology relies upon thousands and thousands of pieces of data which are supported by thousands of other pieces of data–which are continuously observable.  History isn’t observable at all.  So his comparison is unfair and unrealistic on even the most basic of levels.

But there is more to it than that.  Evolutionary theory and the origins of the universe, our plant, and our universe were not conjured up from matters of faith but of science (as those who believe in creationism will tell you).  And science is not a product of faith but a product of critical-thinking Greeks (who gave us science)–those who we would consider today to be atheists or deists (at best).  Yet the figure of Jesus does not come from science.  It comes from a book, which contains a collection of books, which were written by multiple men who were most probably very pious (I would not use the term ‘religious’ since ‘religion’ is a modern construct), for the purpose of having a ‘canon’ upon which a church of faith was built.  The figure of Jesus does not come from critically-minded people but from a series of books from which, as it stands, are are a part of the same collection of god-fearing texts that creationism stems!  The difference for James is that evolution and the big bang (or string theory; whichever) doesn’t interfere with his positions a ‘Progressive Christian’.  So James does not have a problem with ridiculing other Christians who, from the same collection of books, draw upon an irrational belief based upon faith while ignoring the conflicting evidence.

One final interesting tidbit is that creationism, so rooted in a historical Adam and Eve, and fundamentalism–rooted in the historical accuracy of other Old Testament characters–appear to be contrary to James’ beliefs, yet not too long ago, within the past four decades, many of those figures we now consider to be fictional characters were accepted as historical figures by the majority of scholars.  That is to say, it was unthinkable at one time that scholars would ever doubt the historical Moses and the historical Patriarchs.  Now the consensus has shifted.  It is not that these books are not a part of the same collection as those books from the New Testament.  Of course they are from different times, different socio-cultural systems, different people–but this does mean that consensus can be overturned by a small fringe group.

That said, James is not ignorant, by no stretch of the imagination, and clearly he compartmentalizes his faith well since his historical Jesus is a far cry from that of the walking-on-water Jesus Christ of the Gospels.  But James is mistaken if he doesn’t suffer from the same faith-based bias that do Young-Earth Creationists.   It is one thing to humanize Jesus and another to remove him completely from history.  It is hard to be a Christian, even a progressive one, if there is no Christ at all.  There is no denying the fact that James has a vested interest in a historical figure of Jesus.  This analogy that James draws between mythicists and creationists is a projection.   And nothing makes this more clear than the way he reads (or pretends to read) and responds to posts on the subject of the historicity of the figure of Jesus with which he disagrees.

James responds like someone with an emotional investment in the material.  It is not for want of professionalism, for even when James is lambasting someone he does so politely.   But he is incautious (more than he should be if he were critically analyzing the data), and speaks too soon before thinking carefully about what was said to him.  As a result he ends up eating his own foot, which is a real shame because when James posts on other subjects he is insightful (if not brilliant).

An excellent example of this is when Richard Carrier, a noteworthy mythicist, posted up a blog on a method of historicity.  Without realizing that Carrier’s point as it was written actually provided some support for historicity (because he didn’t read it carefully enough), James McGrath responded with a ‘see how silly mythicists are’ attitude as if he were responding to a post arguing against historicity.  What’s more, he missed a critical explanation of a source mentioned and James went about “correcting” Carrier, even though James had been wrong–had he given the post more time, looked at it like a critical scholar should instead of skimming (and assuming the conclusion), he would have avoided having to apologize.  Though to his credit, James did indeed apologize–a sign that James is an honest person.

But James’ honesty is not in question here; neither is his integrity.  The question becomes does ones bias affect the way they handle new data?  Clearly the bias that James has does affect his willingness to consider opposing views.  He cannot deny this, for if it didn’t affect him in this manner we would see much more engaging and useful posts from James about the subject.  We would not see James pressupposing the arguments for mythicism–like we see constantly–instead we would see James actually critically engaging the arguments given.  And sometimes he does, but even during those instances, James does not fully consider the opposing arguments.

I would add here that there is not much difference between a fundamentalist and a normal Christian–even progressive Christians–when it comes to faith.  Faith is faith.  The difference may rest upon the dogma one places their faith in, but I would argue that in terms of emotional investments, the difference between the emotional invest of a fundamentalist in the young-earth mythology and a normal Christian’s emotional investment in a historical Jesus is negligible.

The many ‘yes-men’ on both sides do not help, but are like kindling on a fire that has been burning for far too long.  That is to say, many of those who comment on these blogs egg these two on in a manner which promotes diatribe and not discussion.  Despite what many in the field believe, the question of historicity is still open.  And James is wrong to suggest that there is no evidence for it, since the evidence that mythicists use is the exact same evidence that James uses.  That is the real tragedy in all this.  Between the bickering and the name calling and the challenges, real information is being ignored on both sides.  That James still does not grasp the basic and fundamental arguments of mythicists after all this time and that Neil still does not grasp the fundamental arguments of historical Jesus scholars is a prime example of the problems of this discussion.  One side just assumes the other is wrong without recognizing that the positions re just varied interpretations of the exact same evidence.  It really is nothing more than that.

The final question that must be asked: can either of them overcome their bias against the views of the other or will it continue to consume them both?  Many watching from the sidelines like me–many in the Biblioblog community–wonder if we will ever see sensible posts on the subject.  And that is the real tragedy here.  Because both James and Neil have something to offer scholarship in their own ways.  We may disagree with them at times, but disagreements don’t necessary mean that what they offer is irrelevant.   It is my hope that they both come away from this trying to find that spark of relevance in each other.

As an Addendum, I suspect that following this post I can probably forgo applying to Butler for graduate studies.  ;-)

About these ads

20 Responses

  1. I really enjoyed the analysis and do agree with you almost completely. It was interesting to hear someone else views on the “fight”.

  2. I read James McGrath before I became aware of the discussion with Vridar, and liked his critical views. When I started reading the discussions with Neil, I followed with interest, and I also agree with Gabriel Bienzobas that your analysis is extremely insightful. Still, I can’t help feeling that Neil comes out somewhat ahead overall, in the sense of style, and not whether he has the better argument or not. Like you I currently favor the non-historicity “interpretation” of the evidence, but the opposite was true for me at one time, but I do think that though we cannot significantly see the balance tip toward non-historicity with the current state of the historical evidence, my “naturalist bias” that I am proud to where on my shirt produces confidence that 1) there is more to it than just interpretation because, as I see it, different ways of looking at the evidence at hand can actually lead to new evidence, and 2) further or new evidence will tend to confirm non-historicity more and more. -John F. Felix

  3. Thanks John. I’m not sure I agree that Neil comes out ahead. I think the difference between the two of them is that James doesn’t read things thoroughly, but he generally remains polite (even when being sarcastic). Neil doesn’t care so much about being polite, but he does read. The problem is that James thinks (and I mean he really believes) that he is reading thoroughly. But when you compare James’ responses to Neil’s arguments, only a blind person wouldn’t be able to see how much James doesn’t grasp–and this could all be avoided if he handled the opposing arguments with more care. Neil needs to recognize that James doesn’t have much regard for his position; but berating James is not going to earn him a chance to dialogue with him seriously. It only makes Neil look bad. What else, Neil needs to lose the mentality that academics are out to get him or censor mythicism. He’s wrong about this. But he hasn’t yet accepted that fact.

  4. Tom,

    I very much appreciate this post. I feel like I have learned a lot from both blogs and I have found them excellent places to test the thought process that has led me to historical Jesus agnosticism. However, I have of late become more and more wary of getting caught up on one side of the debate or the other.

    I often run across conservative apologists who have bought into the idea that the evidence for their particular take on Christianity is so overwhelming that the only way an honest person could reject it would be if they don’t understand it. When these apologists run across some piece of evidence on a subject that I haven’t addressed, they assume that this must be the thing that I don’t know about which will refute my position. They then trumpet it as the sockdolager that they assume it must be. It usually turns out that I knew about it already and I can show that it isn’t relevant to the argument that I was making. Sometimes the apologist will admit his error, but he invariably remains convinced that there is something out there that I have missed that will undercut my position and confirms his as soon as he can find it.

    I feel that this is where Dr. McGrath is these days with respect to mythicism. He is convinced that all mythicists are insufficiently familiar with the evidence and/or scholarship and approaches all arguments from that paradigm. When he finds some point that he believes they have not addressed, he jumps on it without first examining it or the mythicist argument that it is intended to refute closely enough to see whether it really is the sockdolager that he thinks it is. I think this can be seen in his discussion of the scholarly consensus on the dating of The Ascension of Isaiah . I respect his willingness to acknowledge such errors even in the midst of such heated discussions, but his propensity to make them is still problematic.

    I sometimes think that what separates good scholarship from poor scholarship is not so much the ability of a scholar to overcome his own biases as his determination to expose them. That’s not to say that a scholar should not employ methodology that minimizes the influence of his biases on his conclusions. However, I think the scholars I appreciate most are the ones who lay out the manner in which they draw their conclusions from the evidence with sufficient care and clarity that it is possible to see where their biases may have played a part.

  5. That is interesting Vinny. Yes, I believe you may be onto something.

  6. I am chiming in as someone who has shifted position on the Jesus thing as well. Once a rather staunch a-historicist (as far as complete novices go), I am now much more agnostic on the issue. Like Tom, I just don’t see enough evidence on either side to make a conclusive (or even reasonably conclusive) declaration. Also like Tom, I lean to non-existence. If 7 is complete historicity and 0 complete ahistoricity, I’m probably a 2.5 on a Likert. But it’s just a leaning. I’m not convinced yet. For comparison, I’d rate myself as a 0.5 before. Almost certain there was no Jesus.

    To make it painfully clear where I stand, I rate myself at about 2.5 on whether or not Ryan Braun willingly took steroids. I am a 6.95 on whether Barry Bonds took steroids willingly, and a 1 on whether Albert Pujols has. This should give sports fans an idea of how I analyze elements. And… full disclosure… I’m a Cardinals fan.

    I didn’t just throw that last comparison out there willy nilly. I KNOW. I know, know, know, that I am biased in favor of the Cardinals. I know that Albert Pujols is a huge specimen of a man, and that steroid use was rampant during the first 5 – 7 years of his career. I know that he could have used them all the way through the minors, and nobody would ever have known. I know all of this. And I still believe he didn’t do them.

    Now… here’s the interesting kicker to the whole story. Back to Jesus: I used to have a vested interest in his non-existence. I’m an atheist activist. I really wanted to have that one nuclear bomb to throw at theists. One day, I came to the intellectual realization that his existence doesn’t actually matter. The existence of a man named Jesus is absolutely irrelevant to all the claims of Jesus’ divinity. It’s irrelevant to whether there is no god. I can do everything I’ve ever done as an activist whether or not Jesus existed.

    Once I realized that, I re-examined the evidence, and suddenly… Well… the argument wasn’t nearly as lock-solid as it used to be. I could no longer in good conscience say that I was sure Jesus never existed, or even that I was mostly sure. I only had a suspicion based on incomplete information.

    OK…. Sorry for the long diatribe… but here’s the point I think both participants in this particular debate could take to heart…

    Just last night, I was watching something about Albert Pujols in his new home in Anaheim. Someone asked me about whether or not he used steroids ever, and without even thinking, I blurted out… “I dunno. There’s no evidence he did, but I guess there are a lot of ways he could have hidden it.”

    All of a sudden, I’m only around a 2.5… And it happened within minutes of me losing an emotional investment in his not having used steroids…

    Crazy stuff, emotional investment.

  7. ‘Neil is constantly coming down upon James’ credibility as a scholar and his credentials.’

    In other words, he quotes McGrath extensively and accurately.

    TOM
    ‘That James still does not grasp the basic and fundamental arguments of mythicists after all this time….’

    As you rightly point out, he is a professional Bible scholar, and one who has made a careful study of mythicism. In other words, he still does not grasp the basic arguments, but this has no bearing whatever on his credibility,

    Even McGrath’s claims that historians should use fabricated material do not bear on his credibility.

  8. TOM
    But when you compare James’ responses to Neil’s arguments, only a blind person wouldn’t be able to see how much James doesn’t grasp….

    CARR
    That’s pretty even-handed of you. Can I quote that in future please?

  9. Tom, I have never called Dr McGrath insane or in need of medical attention because he disagrees with me. I have never accuse McGrath of pretending or deliberate deception. I have been bending over backwards to avoid returning McGrath’s insults in kind. I know I only have to express the slightest impatience or sarcasm in a response and McGrath will chastise me with utmost severity but other commenters – and he himself — are free to call me all sorts of names under the sun.

    I have been bending over backwards to keep my responses professional and I have even asked contributors to my blog to do the same: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/appeal-to-vridar-readers-re-dr-mcgrath/

    I have sometimes made mistakes and when these have been pointed out I have apologized and corrected myself- – including to Dr McGrath himself.

    A little while ago some onlookers attempted to break the ice between McGrath and me in comments at this post here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/07/making-stuff-up-about-messiahs-and-me.html

    I took up their offer and McGrath only responded reluctantly on a followup series of exchanges — and soon returned to insult and innuendo all over again.

    If you really have been following exchanges between McGrath and me you will see quite a lot of milestone posts on his blog where I have begged him to put aside innuendo and attacks and to engage in civil discussion — all to no avail.

    Yes, I do respond when I believe an academic is failing his professional responsibility as a public intellectual and is not being intellectually honest or fanning public prejudice. Am I at fault for those efforts?

    Yes, there have been a few times when I have said that some of McGrath’s treatment of Earl Doherty’s book is dishonest. But I have not resorted to insult and I have explained I do not believe Dr McGrath is being deliberately dishonest and have supported my claims with clear evidence. McGrath regularly reads my mind and motives. I do not believe I do so in return.

    My responses to McGrath have been efforts at sticking to the facts of the matter. I believe you are allowing your own personal animosity against me to read into my posts your own imagined abuse against Dr McGrath.

    At least you did not provide any evidence for you character attack against me.

  10. Tom wrote: “Neil is constantly coming down upon James’ credibility as a scholar and his credentials.”

    Tom, where is your evidence? This is a false accusation. Where am I “constantly coming down upon James’ credibility as a scholar and his credentials”? I ask you to withdraw this accusation.

    Any remarks I have made critical of Dr McGrath have been very specific to his own claims. I have from time to time spoken of theologians being ignorant of normative historical methods as practiced outside their guild but in doing so I am merely repeating what scholars such as Scot McKnight themselves have said — and addressed specific statements by McGrath himself that contradict the methods espoused in books by professional historians that McGrath even tells me to read.

    In other words, I am not attacking McGrath’s character or professionalism. But I do address very specific claims with specific facts, and I do so without vitriol. Where is this “vitriol” you speak of? Yes, there were some posts in the early days I did come to regret when I was first confronted with scholarly abuse, but you will not — I trust — see those repeated in recent times and you will also find my own expressions of regret for those.

    That you continue to see my posts as full of vitriol says much more about your own perceptions than anything I believe a neutral third party would read.

  11. Neil, all one has to do is go to your blog and do a search for ‘James McGrath scholar” see just on the first page of results you have called him dishonest, a charlatan, and that is insult enough. I’m sure if one had the time (I don’t) to go through all your posts to McGrath, we would find these sorts of insults and accusations throughout the past few years. I have read your posts Neil, and while you might not do it all the time, you do it enough that you have tainted your own reputation with others. Calling someone a charlatan–particularly one who has gone through the academic process and earned their degrees–is not just insulting, but a serious charge against ones credibility. And these are the sorts of insults you levy against James. You treat him like a fraud. It breathes through every word you write. So no, Neil, I will not retract my statement since, clearly, the statement I made is true.

  12. After Neil and Mcgrath broke the Ice, neil posted this. http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/why-mcgrath-should-honourably-step-down-from-the-debate/

    “When one reaches that point then one owes it to everyone to admit that one is biased beyond reason and incapable of engaging in a genuinely respectful and fair discussion.”
    I don’t think a reading of James post on Mythicism, such as http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/07/no-evidence-for-a-historical-jesus-or-evolution.html or those proceding it merit the response Neil gave.

    I don’t know how to reconcile, “I have never accuse McGrath of pretending or deliberate deception.” and “Yes, there have been a few times when I have said that some of McGrath’s treatment of Earl Doherty’s book is dishonest.”

    Now Tom, no is calling you dishonest, but your accusation is clearly false. Neil does not “constantly” come down upon James’ credibility as a scholar and his credentials. He does a lot with his days, sleeping, eating, and even writing none James related post now again, so clearly his coming down on James can hardly be constant.

  13. Tom, I see you have difficulty in reading my posts. Yes, you refer to a post over a year ago and you will observe that I said there were things I said that I regretted and have never been repeated.

    I see you admit you have not gone through my posts but you still can say you are sure you will find them full of insult. That is a most reckless and false allegation for which you are admitting you have no evidence. Just assumption.

    You have a record for reckless accusation. Note in particular your allegations against Rene Salm when you admit you have not even read his book!!

    Simiilarly on FRDB you waded in accusing members there of all sorts of sins before you even took the time to get to know them or where they were coming from. You are very reckless with your allegations against others — even more so, I dare suggest, than McGrath himself.

    So I call on you to be honest yourself and not make reckless charges you merely assume there is evidence for. This is nothing but reckless slander on your part. I have admitted I made mistakes in the past and James has too. The difference is I have not repeated those mistakes. James has.

    Yes, if I have said anything harsh about McGrath’s claims I have been very specific. I have not accused him of being a fraud as a scholar. I have held him to account when he has made false accusations and false references and false claims for which he is professionally accountable. In his recent review of Earl Doherty he does make dishonest — blatantly false claims for which he is accountable — and I point these out.

    As for my charlatan post that was over a year ago — you will notice the context and you will notice the very specific assertion I made. For you to twist this into accusing me of saying McGrath is a charlatan as a scholar is itself a misrepresentation. Even though I would no longer use such language — you have to stretch back over a year — I do not resile form the specific facts I addressed about McGrath’s grossly unprofessional conduct.

    I ask you to be more professional and accountable yourself and base your words on hard and current evidence — and withdraw your accusations against both Rene Salm and me.

  14. I might add, Tom, that I frequently get emails from people commending me on my restraint in my dealings with McGrath, commending me on my tone and refusal to respond in kind.

    My recent posts prompted your accusations against me. I ask you to quote from those recent posts any insults or abuse. Or withdraw your slanderous attack.

  15. Mike Wilson who regularly spits the most foul-mouthed insults at me on Dr McGrath’s blog quotes half a sentence of mine that is supposed to be evidence of insult or abuse: The part Mike omitted from that sentence was the following:

    When one:

    1. publishes an Amazon review of a book before he has read more than a small fraction of it,

    2. and when he says he knows he will find an argument implausible before he even reads it,

    3. and when he says he should not explain fairly or fully an argument that he detests because he fears someone might think favourably of it — thus conceding he does not respect his readers and lacks confidence in the power of reasoned arguments,

    4. and when he finds himself incapable of thinking someone can present a mythicist argument with sincerity and honesty — that such a one is either incompetently deluded or a blatant liar

    5. and when he refuses to respond (except with insulting barbs) to questions and posts addressing the discrepancies between what he says about Doherty’s arguments and what Doherty actually does write

    — Those are all facts that I was addressing, not opinions, but facts. Those are all words expressed and things done by Dr McGrath — not malicious abuse or insults but pointing out what Dr McGrath has said and done by his own admission or that is on the record.

    Now Tom: you were prompted to write your attack on me on the basis of my recent posts about Dr McGrath’s arguments. I ask you to provide evidence from those posts of my insults or abuse or withdraw your accusation.

    I insist on this.

  16. Neil, your persecution complex is showing.

  17. Neil,

    I do not believe that a state of affairs such as the one that exists between you and Dr. McGrath develops without both parties choosing to go in that direction.

  18. Neil, where is your evidence for all these charges?

  19. Neil, you are merely proving my point that you are irrationally emotionally invested in this subject. You can’t see that you have set your own reputation in this discussion. That you are blind to your own tone, to your own manner of emotional reactionism, suggests that you have a vested interest in being right. It matters not when or where you said these things to James McGrath, you have already tainted the discussion. You have pissed in your own well, so to speak, and nobody is to blame but you. That you cannot even take responsibility for your actions–you divert attention “to the past” rather than accept your fault here, as if those words were spoken by some other Neil Godfrey who no longer exists–suggests that you should probably also step down from this debate since you are no longer thinking clearly.

  20. [...] He doesn’t read things with which he has a predisposition to disagree.  He reacts to them.  This is precisely the criticism I gave to him before.  And because he doesn’t critically examine things he just flat out disagrees with, he makes [...]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 771 other followers

%d bloggers like this: