ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, March 30, 2012

A failure of narrative

Conservatives increasingly distrust scientists:
Just over 34 percent of conservatives had confidence in science as an institution in 2010, representing a long-term decline from 48 percent in 1974, according to a paper being published today in American Sociological Review. That represents a dramatic shift for conservatives, who in 1974 were more likely than liberals or moderates (all categories based on self-identification) to express confidence in science. While the confidence levels of other groups in science have been relatively stable, the conservative drop now means that group is the least likely to have confidence in science....

Less-educated conservatives didn't change their attitudes about science in recent decades. It is better-educated conservatives who have done so, the paper says.

In the paper, Gauchat calls this a "key finding," in part because it challenges "the deficit model, which predicts that individuals with higher levels of education will possess greater trust in science, by showing that educated conservatives uniquely experienced the decline in trust.”
The left-liberal narrative wants to push the idea that conservatives have turned away from the scientific method for ideological reasons and are willing to do so because they are less educated. But that won't fly, since it is the more educated conservatives who don't trust "science as an institution". Which, of course, is very different than science as a method.

And the reason is obvious. Science as an institution is increasingly abandoning science as a method, so much so that it is often not even appropriate to refer to "science" or "scientists" when one is discussing some of the various quasi-sciences such as econometrics, the theory of evolution by (probably) natural selection, and what presently goes by the name of "climate change".

Labels:

47 Comments:

Anonymous Ben March 30, 2012 10:52 AM  

Just a few days ago I was driving and a news report came on, saying some award winning scientific panel found that humans cause global warming and that the weather is going to get much more dangerous. These predictive models are not scientific at all and prove nothing. Weathermen cannot tell you accurately what the weather is going to be in a week, but we're supposed to believe these rent seeking sociopaths.

Anonymous The other skeptic March 30, 2012 10:58 AM  

And the MSM?

In a post-apocalyptic America I imagine that media figures might find themselves hanging high. Those that survive long enough that is.

Anonymous Servant March 30, 2012 10:59 AM  

Conservatism by definition is opposed to the agenda of scientific institutionalism which is of course to let scientist (because they know better than us)direct our lives.

If the scientific method could be applied to the current in vogue hypothesis masquerading as facts that would be one thing, but a scientists opinion on anything other than his/her very limited field is worth no more than mine or yours

Transference, while valuable, is not universal

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 11:07 AM  

An speaking of distrust (most have probably already seen this) Why are Homeland Security buying 450M HP 40 cal rounds and 150M 223 rounds?

Even assuming they only get a 100 to 1 hit ratio, they think they need to, uhhh, dispose of 6M citizens/residents? And when?

Blogger 罗臻 March 30, 2012 11:22 AM  

The left never understand the ultimate implication of politicizing an institution. Even if the liberals are 100% correct in their criticism of conservatives, they fail to grasp that politics rules political questions. Thus, in taking over the institution of science, they have weakened it because now it becomes political and therefore the enemy of one side. They think they can appeal to science when facing voters, but what they've done is made the institution of science a subset of politics. That they also favor increasing the power of government just increases the stakes of winner takes all.) Thus, the irony of liberals appealing to science (don't vote for those dumb conservatives), when the people in fact vote based on politics. Were the conservatives truly out to get "science," liberals have made it all the easier.

Blogger Giraffe March 30, 2012 11:26 AM  

Link doesn't work, it has your blog address mixed in.

Anonymous Stickwick March 30, 2012 11:38 AM  

There was a significant survey (may have been the Baylor religion survey) that showed American Christians were fine with science and technology. What they distrusted were academic scientists.

This result ought to inspire some soul-searching on the part of scientists in the academy. Given the state of the economy and that educated conservatives are more likely to be active in politics and philanthropy than less-educated conservatives (and less-educated liberals), scientists can no longer afford to alienate them.

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 11:39 AM  

This statistic merely reflects the truth that the more experienced one is, and the more time one spends observing a thing being done by the actual practitioners in the field, the more jaundiced one becomes about the competence and honesty of one's fellow practitioners. Anyone who has worked in a research university knows that most "pure science" being done today is 90% grantsmanship, budget battles, and turf wars, and 10% meaningful inquiry into the limits of human knowledge.

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 11:44 AM  

I think the traditional terms for institutional "science" are alchemy and astrology.

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 11:46 AM  

Instapundit reader Mary Ritenour writes:

"I tracked back to the original paper (http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf) to see what the exact survey question was.

“The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172)

The confidence in “people running these institutions” was being measured, not “Science” itself. Huge difference. HUGE!

Maybe we should be skeptical of science reporting, too."

Anonymous mmaier2112@work March 30, 2012 11:48 AM  

I love how "big business" (tobacco & oil) can corrupt scientists with money and those scientists are not to be trusted in the least but - of course - there's no money or any type of vested interest in backing global warming. (Unless you're Al Gore, I guess.)

And the fact that the "Climate Changists" always back government-led tyranny at every turn is in no way indicative of anything whatsoever.

Yeah. Right.

Anonymous Stickwick March 30, 2012 11:49 AM  

One of the Anons*: I think the traditional terms for institutional "science" are alchemy and astrology.

That describes the social and behavioral sciences, not the physical sciences. The physical sciences are still producing meaningful work. The problem is, this work is hugely supportive of the Christian worldview, so the materialists have to go into contortions to misrepresent their findings to the public. They only occasionally distort the meaning of science to include non-science (e.g. the multiverse).

* Pick a name, wouldya?

Blogger Monsignor Scott Rassbach March 30, 2012 11:56 AM  

I'm curious as to what VD & the Ilk think the effect of propaganda might be in influencing that opinion. I mean, right-leaning news outlets are not objective (neither are left-leaning), and educated conservatives will tend to get their information from conservative sources.

So, how much of the lack of confidence is due to actual problems, and how much is due to the presentation of those problems? Sometimes, a lack of confidence is simply generated by the perception of issues rather than real issues. After all, not everyone polled will be diligent in their personal research on the issue.

Anonymous Daniel March 30, 2012 12:02 PM  

罗臻
Thus, in taking over the institution of science, they have weakened it because now it becomes political and therefore the enemy of one side.

They also weakened it because they made it wrong on purpose.

It used to be that the problem with social science was that it was neither.

Now the problem is that science...isn't.

Turning anything into politics makes it politics. But the point is that that is still a victory for the marxist: after all, annihilation is preferred to illumination.

So, by "liberalizing" science to nonsense, the liberal wins: he destroyed something functional. Just because Hollywood cranks out empty social vacuums, the media spins a veneer narrative having nothing to do with the culture, and the Illuminati now draw their power from Angry Birds does not mean that the liberals aren't getting exactly what they hoped for: The Utopic Necropolis.

Anonymous Stickwick March 30, 2012 12:30 PM  

Monsignor, I'm an academy scientist who converted to Christianity while getting my doctorate. The problem from my point of view is one of both presentation and perception, for as I pointed out above, modern science taken at face value is overwhelmingly supportive of Christian faith.

A lot of the fault lies with scientists who take their legitimate work and use it to make philosophical pronouncements. Stephen Hawking is a good example of this. He produced some excellent work during the earlier, more fruitful part of his career, but lately he has devoted his efforts to making very silly statements that have nothing to do with science. We also have scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg who want to supplant God with the multiverse conjecture as the ultimate explanation for the universe. I know for a fact that the multiverse idea is at least partially motivated by ideology. As far as I can tell, no physicists are actually lying about the limitations of the multiverse conjecture, but they do try to mislead people with it.

And then, of course, you get militant atheist mouthpieces, like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who just want to muddy the waters without producing any meaningful science.

However, some of the fault also lies with scientific laypeople, many of whom are insufficiently versed in science, philosophy, and the tenets of their own faith to: a) recognize where scientists are misleading people with personal speculation; and b) recognize where science is supporting their beliefs. When Hawking says there is no heaven, he is not basing this on any conclusive scientific work, he's basing it on an erroneous idea of how the human brain works and an inept analogy to computers. People should be able to read statements like this and immediately identify the errors in his reasoning; but they largely don't. When Krauss or Weinberg talk about the multiverse, people should be able to recognize that the materialists are on the defensive, because they've already conceded that the universe is not eternal. The discovery of the big bang is arguably the greatest scientific support for Christianity there is, and yet many Christians not only don't understand why, they believe it's a conspiracy to undermine their beliefs.

Anonymous MendoScot March 30, 2012 12:43 PM  

"I tracked back to the original paper (http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf) to see what the exact survey question was.

Ah yes, always look at the data when liberals start spouting. So here it is - it was moderates who first lost confidence during the '70s. Conservative levels didn't drop to the same distrust until the '00s, altho' the decline started in the '80's and was fairly progressive. In short it's not just conservatives, it's conservatives and moderates.

Funny how that isn't mentioned.

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 1:01 PM  

Whenever moderates fail to agree with liberals, they become conservatives.

Blogger wrf3 March 30, 2012 1:18 PM  

Stickwick wrote: The physical sciences are still producing meaningful work.

Sure, but the signal to noise ratio is decreasing. Multiverse (Lubos always has interesting things to say about why it isn't the case), superluminal neutrinos, local hidden variable theories, ...

Anonymous MendoScot March 30, 2012 1:37 PM  

It just becomes more amusing. So the reason that they don't identify the moderates is that they used three models to look for progressive declines or associated with the Reagan or Bush II presidencies - but the drop in the moderates was abrupt and sustained, obvious from the unadjusted data (whiffs of climate science?) in Figure 1. His description in the abstract?

Conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and ended the period with the lowest.

As a reviewer I would never have let that pass. There appears to be a bunch of other observations unpalatable to liberals in the data, but I'd need to look at the supplementary information and the models he is using, and I don't have time.

Blogger Vox March 30, 2012 1:47 PM  

Link doesn't work, it has your blog address mixed in.

Thanks, fixed.

Blogger Vox March 30, 2012 1:50 PM  

I mean, right-leaning news outlets are not objective (neither are left-leaning), and educated conservatives will tend to get their information from conservative sources.

Your assumption is incorrect. Educated conservatives, by definition, have spent a considerable amount of time in the academy. So, they are actually less likely to get their information from mainstream conservative sources such as Fox News. For example, although I am not conservative, I would surely have been lumped in that category. And I don't get any news from conservative sources with the occasional exception of NRO.

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 2:06 PM  

"In the paper, Gauchat calls this a "key finding," in part because it challenges "the deficit model, which predicts that individuals with higher levels of education will possess greater trust in science, by showing that educated conservatives uniquely experienced the decline in trust.” "

Since you are fond of pointing out the failure of others to interpret or properly characterize statistics, I'll have to point this out. It may still very well be that educated conservatives trust scientific institutions more than uneducated conservatives. It could simply be that the gap has narrowed because the uneducated never trusted them and still don't, and the educated conservatives trust them less than they used to.

Of course, I'm only going by what's written here - I haven't read the underlying survey, so maybe it makes it more clear as to whether educated conservatives actually trust the institutions less than uneducated.

Nonetheless, as you've noted, the educated conservatives are more likely to have seen first hand the gradual politicization of these institutions.

Blogger JartStar March 30, 2012 2:19 PM  

I've noticed in the last few years there seems to be various "conservatives are crazy" studies popping up almost weekly. Since the studies are invariably done by liberals the non-subtle subtext is one of studying the "crazies" in a lab to help society better manage them.

I wonder if in desperation "Science as an institution" is laying the ground work to eventually declare conservatism and religiosity as psychiatric illnesses.

Anonymous JMH March 30, 2012 2:30 PM  

Something occurred to me the other day as I was re-reading an old column on the Metric System. The author criticized the metric system as artificial and disconnected with every day tasks. He used temperature as an example. People with a metric fetish like to laugh at the absurdity of the Farenheit scale. Water freezed at 32 degrees and boils at 212, two meaningless numbers that make the creaky old Farenheit scale illogical. Meanwhile of course Celsius has the sensible definitons of water freezing at zero degrees and boiling at 100.

But the author points out that the Farenheit scale got it's name from the scientist who invented the thermometer and thereby got the right to both calibrate and name the scale. He wasn't the first guy to try and create an accurate temperature measuring device, he was just the first guy who succeeded. He was a genius, and it took a great deal of work on his part to create the thermometer. Perhaps someone that smart and accomplished might have a reason for picking the scale he did? In fact, he did.

the 0-100 Farenheit scale represents the normal temperature range human being (well, Northern Europeans anyway) would encounter. Anything below zero degrees is dangerously cold and requires precautions to avoid injury from the extreme cold. Anything above 100 is dangerously hot since the body can no longer simply dump heat into the air but has to resort to more active means of cooling. The Celsius scale is logical if you're a water molecule. The Farenheit scale is logical if you're a human being.

Anyway, the thing I realized was that in olden times, scientists were far more often tinkerers, engineers, and mechanics. They had to create the devices they used to perform their experiments. Farenheit had to invent the thermometer. Galileo, Kepler and Newton were all involved in designing better telescopes. Joule tinkered around in his father's brewery creating machinery to measure heat and work. The founding giants of science were generally hands-on, practical men. Even their theories that were "wrong" were still "right" within the limits of everyday human experience. Newtonian physics don't work inside of a computer chip, but they work just fine if you're trying to winch a bridge girder into place.

Modern scientists aren't very hands-on any more. The AGW folks aren't actually inventing machines or devices that either work or don't. They make computer models that have no inherent fitness tests. And of course they complain like a two year old denied her candy if any outsiders try to apply a fitness test to their models.

The first scientist to propose the CO2-greenhouse cycle that's at the heart of AGW was Roger Revelle with Scripps Institute of Oceanography. That was back in the 50's when he was measuring sea temperatures. He was more like the old-school scientiests, hands-on creating devices to measure and track sea temperatures. he thought there might be a link between sea temperature, CO2 sequestration, and the greenhouse effect. His early theories became the basis for what we have today.

But Revelle himself came to be suspicious of, and ultimately reject, his own theory. The more work he did, the more he realized the theory didn't hold up. His last major speech was a warning against people demanding drastic remedies for a problem that wasn't proven to exist.

If more scientists were hands-on people who had to make devices that were subject to obvious pass-fail tests, perhaps the institution would still be held in higher regard.

Anonymous Geoff-UK March 30, 2012 2:34 PM  

Stand by for govt-paid (GS-15, up to $155k/YEAR) NOAA scientists to declare:
Global Cooling, uh, they mean
Global Warming, uh, they mean
Climate Change, uh, they mean
Climate Variability (yeah, that's it) is a FACT, and people who don't believe in facts are crazy--then stand by for govt-paid (GS-15, up to $155k/YEAR) psychologists to commit dissenters into a relearning institution.

Where's our Siberia going to be? Some corner of Montana? I only ask because I'm looking for a job, and a prison warden GS-15 in Montana can make up to $148K/YEAR.


http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/pdf/saltbl.pdf

Anonymous Starbuck March 30, 2012 2:41 PM  

Stand by for govt-paid (GS-15, up to $155k/YEAR) NOAA scientists to declare:
Global Cooling, uh, they mean
Global Warming, uh, they mean
Climate Change, uh, they mean
Climate Variability (yeah, that's it) is a FACT, and people who don't believe in facts are crazy--then stand by for govt-paid (GS-15, up to $155k/YEAR) psychologists to commit dissenters into a relearning institution.

Where's our Siberia going to be? Some corner of Montana? I only ask because I'm looking for a job, and a prison warden GS-15 in Montana can make up to $148K/YEAR.



155k per year? 148K per year?!
Good grief, no wonder the government is so far in debt. Paying paper pushers huge salaries. Fire them and hire people willing to work for 60k or 80k per year. (I bet they can find them.) and probably be no worse off.

Anonymous kh123 March 30, 2012 2:49 PM  

"Where's our Siberia going to be?"

I nominate Ellesmere Island, where the sacred magical lungfish Tiktaalik was found.*


*More than likely on the taxpayers' dime; which kind of keeps the precedent of the whole theme intact.

Anonymous Geoff-UK March 30, 2012 3:11 PM  

@Starbuck,
"Fire them and hire people willing to work for 60k or 80k per year. (I bet they can find them.) and probably be no worse off."


Fire WHO? You're RACISS!

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34685_20110419.pdf
*See Table 13
Category Sept 1998 Dec 2010
Women 44.4% 44.1%
African 15.9% 33.5%
Hispanic 6.4% 6.1%
Asian/Pacific 4.5% 5.7%
Other Minority 2.1% 4.3%



And for which agencies are stuffing the faces of their employees with high salaries? See Table 18:
1.SEC *AVERAGE* salary? $147k/annual
2.Fed Housing Fin Agency, ditto
3. Commodities Futures Trading Co, $137k/year (and way to go boys! You jailed John Corzine, got back the MF Global money, and stopped JPM from manipulating the gold and silver market! You deserve all that green!)
4.FCC average is $119k/year
... (take a deep breath)...
10. Dept of EDUCATION, AVERAGE $102K/year
... (take another deep breath)...
Those mouth-breathers at the airport who DO NOT NEED a high school education to be hired by TSA--LOOK. IT. UP. GED = A-OK! AVERAGE salary for TSA = $48K/year
...(one final breath)...
US Army Installation Management, average $56k/year. And trust me. In fact, I encourage you to finagle a visit to a local Army MICC office. You will not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. $56k/year, hiring now! (Please be appropriate race when applying, thank you in advance for your understanding).

Anonymous Servant March 30, 2012 3:35 PM  

If I understand history correctly, Fahrenheit used a scale based on 12 (the older sacred number - before 10 became the sacred one because -you know- we have ten fingers- and he selected 0 as the coldest temperature he could repeatably reproduce (water, salts, and ice) i have been told that his 100% (not 100 degrees) point was body temperature (which would be at that time 96 degrees F) - remember we are talking Germany and besides 98.6 is only nominal.
His scale has more resolution, as the aforementioned writer stated deals with the human experience, and I personally see no need to change just because Celsius needed something named after him.

Anonymous Anonymous March 30, 2012 4:16 PM  

I'll believe it when a conservative group molotovs a lab that's about to find the next cancer drug.

Anonymous Kriston March 30, 2012 4:23 PM  

Servant March 30, 2012 3:35 PM

If I understand history correctly, Fahrenheit used a scale based on 12 (the older sacred number - before 10 became the sacred one because -you know- we have ten fingers- and he selected 0 as the coldest temperature he could repeatably reproduce (water, salts, and ice) i have been told that his 100% (not 100 degrees) point was body temperature (which would be at that time 96 degrees F) - remember we are talking Germany and besides 98.6 is only nominal.
His scale has more resolution, as the aforementioned writer stated deals with the human experience, and I personally see no need to change just because Celsius needed something named after him.


0 was set as the freezing point of saturated salt water and human body temp was set at 8 dozen.

98.6 is a minor adjustment so that the simple conversion 9/5 + 32 (C -> F) would be correct.

Blogger AJW308 March 30, 2012 4:41 PM  

I've seen this mechanism in real life. When a chronic liar has lost credibility, his yarns will take on the format "[trusted source] told me that[body of the lie goes here]" since most will spread the trust in the trusted source to the liar.

Anonymous van Rooinek March 30, 2012 5:38 PM  

The left-liberal narrative wants to push the idea that conservatives have turned away from the scientific method for ideological reasons and are willing to do so because they are less educated. But that won't fly, since it is the more educated conservatives who don't trust "science as an institution". Which, of course, is very different than science as a method.

As a conservative scientist, I thank you for making that distinction clear.

Blogger Giraffe March 30, 2012 5:51 PM  

Here's another guy who thinks right wing = stupid and left wing = nuanced.

Diagnosing the Republican Brain

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick March 30, 2012 7:18 PM  

When Vox says that he is not a conservative, what does he mean by that?

Anonymous Oregon Mouse March 30, 2012 7:19 PM  

Stickwick:
"modern science taken at face value is overwhelmingly supportive of Christian faith."

Where would I find legitimate, well founded information like this (book titles/websites)? it would be encouraging to read some scientific explanations form a christian perspective.

Blogger tz March 30, 2012 7:44 PM  

The problem is with the mad scientists. Those who are angry, insane, or both.

Anonymous John March 30, 2012 7:47 PM  

"Here's another guy who thinks right wing = stupid and left wing = nuanced."

He actually explicitly states that he's not calling conservatives "stupid" only different than liberals, which shouldn't be too controversial. He does contend that there is something reactionary in the modern conservative mentality that is causing an abundance of reality denial. There may also be something intrinsically different about liberal and conservative psychology, such as the well established delta in openness to new experience between them.

Oh, and you linked to page 3 of the article.

Blogger AJW308 March 30, 2012 8:26 PM  

I've seen this mechanism in real life. When a chronic liar has lost credibility, his yarns will take on the format "[trusted source] told me that[body of the lie goes here]" since most will spread the trust in the trusted source to the liar.

Anonymous nordicthunder March 30, 2012 8:50 PM  

this credentialed chick thinks you are raciss AND deranged if you disagree with AGWCC theory

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor/


but hey, at least shes a looker !

Anonymous daddynichol March 30, 2012 9:04 PM  

nordicthunder,

One of the Ilk passed this on to me and now I pass it on to you:

Learn how to hotlink. Go here to see how it's done. If I can learn it, so can you. Give it a try.

Apply it and your web reference will look like this .

Anonymous daddynichol March 30, 2012 9:09 PM  

Dang. Error with my link.

Try this.

Anonymous JMH March 31, 2012 1:22 AM  

Yes, a water/ice/salt (it was a specific salt, I don't remember exactly what) in equilibrium was zero and the human body was 100 in the initial scale (water and ice in equilibrium was also used as another calibration point). There was a further adjustent Farenheit made once he had a thermometer that could measure the boiling point of water. It turned out the boiling point was almost 180 degrees higher than the freezing point of water, and 180 is easily divisible by many numbers and so it was thought that a 180 degree spread between the freezing and boiling points of water would be a good thing, so the scale was slightly adjusted to make that true.

Being divisible by lots of numbers is a great advantage. In the original article I read lampooning the Metric system, the author mentioned overhearing two young French carpenters discussing this great technique they'd come up with. Instead of using 1 meter for a standard measurement, they were using 1.2 meters. 1.2 meters was easily divisible by 2, or by 3, or by 4, or by 6. It was great! They were very proud of their discovery, and the author interjected and said something along the lines of "you mean like having 12 inches to the foot?"

Anonymous Stickwick March 31, 2012 1:33 AM  

Oregon Mouse: Where would I find legitimate, well founded information like this (book titles/websites)? it would be encouraging to read some scientific explanations form a christian perspective.

I highly recommend starting with Gerald Schroeder's book, The Science of God. (See his website here.) Schroeder is a physicist and theologian who makes his case from an Old Testament perspective. This is the book that got me on the path from hostile agnosticism to Christianity. You could supplement with books by Hugh Ross, e.g. Why the Universe is the Way it Is. Schroeder's main thing is that science and the Bible (esp. Genesis) are in very good agreement. Ross' main thing is that the universe is so fine-tuned that it must have had a creator.

Blogger Doom March 31, 2012 2:49 AM  

I was about to say...

But then you covered it. It isn't science that is being refuted, it is the political party that acts as if it were scientific. For me, science, true science, is an aspect of God. It is knowledge. So, pursuing understanding is a good thing. When politics trumps the pursuit of pure knowledge, it is no longer science. But, I repeat you.

Anonymous Idle Spectator March 31, 2012 3:07 AM  

Possibly one of the funniest papers I've seen in a while:

Ethnomathematics

There are so many layers here: affirmative action in the hard sciences. Diversity. Women in science. And the scientific establishment becoming untruthworthy.

Mathematicians are not technically scientists, but math is still part of the scientific establishment. You want to be more trustworthy? Stop publishing this junk.

Blogger techsoftwareworld September 15, 2012 3:03 PM  

nice & grate post !! Letest Full Version Software And Games Download Site

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts