On Gritting Your Teeth and Sticking to a Narrative

_{Barry Arrington

June 26, 2016

Intelligent Design, Naturalism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

An anti-ID commenter who goes by MatSpirit has been active in these pages for well over a year, during which time he has posted scores of comments in the comboxes of dozens of OPs. This particular statement in one of his comments caught my eye:

If I understand correctly, the ID story is that some unidentified, undetectable supernatural agent acting at a time and place unknown arranged matter into patterns that are living creatures.

*palm forehead*

It is just staggering to me that someone can spend so much time and effort debating ID and still not have the first idea about the fundamentals of the theory.

I understand what is going on here, of course. Like many of our opponents MatSpirit had a pre-conceived idea of what ID is about before he came to these pages, and nothing — not facts, not logic, not reason –will ever shake that idea. You can explain the fundamentals of ID to a brick wall 1,000 times, and you can explain the fundamentals of ID to someone like MatSpirit 1,000 times, and it will have an identical effect – that is to say, none at all.

You see, MatSpirit has a narrative. And the narrative must be maintained at all costs.

UPDATE

I invite readers to skip down to comment 30. You will see that MatSpirit continues to grit his teeth and stick to his narrative even after it has been pointed out that is what he is doing. It is really quite amazing.

Comments

DK, not surprisingly, you are ignoring physical evidence in favor of maneuvering a rhetorical response. The title of this thread is apropos. I did not make any claims (one way or another) about whom else “promotes the idea that language and genetic coding exhibit a universal correlate of intelligence”. I made a claim that genetic encoding and language exhibit unique physical conditions found nowhere else in the cosmos. Here is what I actually said:
the encoding of polymers inside the living cell is a semiotic system that demonstrates an exclusive set of physical conditions not found anywhere else in the cosmos but in the use of recorded language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence.
So I made an empirical claim and added a parenthetical statement, which I presented as a fact. Both my empirical claim and my parenthetical statement are subject to validation by physical evidence, but you do not seem to be too interested in that evidence. However, I am. As for my empirical claim (that genetic encoding shares the same physical conditions as language), we can walk though the evidence if you’d like. Frankly, it’s all going to boil down to the basic structural observations of the genetic system. These are all very well-described in the literature, and are not even controversial. Also, I have already offered you the substantial writings of a physicist who has published extensively on this specific subject for half a century, and who is even (for whatever it’s worth) on the other side of the metaphysical fence. We can question his observations if you like, but we won’t get far. His observations are based on knowledge that is (again) fully described and non-controversial. This is one of the things that builds confidence in the observations. No one questions whether or not the anticodon-to-amino acid association is spatially and temporally separate from the codon-to-anticodon association. No one questions whether or not the arrangement of bases in a codon has a spatial orientation, or that it is rate-independent (energy-degenerate). These types of observations make the system uniquely identifiable to a physicist. If you, or anyone else, is just now coming to realize this fact, then that is fine. So, if you had asked your question about my actual empirical claim, then I have answered your question. Pattee makes a convincing case, which he has been publishing since the late 1960s. And he is not alone. This leaves only the validity of my parenthetical statement in question. Is the use of recorded language and mathematics two universal correlates of intelligence, or not? I don’t think the question warrants much of a response. The capacity to scribble out the mathematical equations of our physical world, and fill up our libraries with books, are universally known to be a demonstration of intelligence. I recognize that these facts put you in the position of seeking a rhetorical response (where logic and the realities of physical evidence have failed you). But let’s not be hasty -- let’s instead take your question by it’s horn: Who promotes the idea that both genetic coding and human language demonstrate intelligence?. That would be virtually every ID proponent you might encounter. In fact, many have been saying so for years, even without actually knowing or fully appreciating the semiotic observations. This only strengthens their inference. You see, in contrast to your position, logic and physical evidence have not failed them.Upright BiPed_{July 5, 2016
July
07
Jul
5
05
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

I directed this to MatSpirit, but, open it to anyone who can help: thanks: : “how the Designer did his designing” Why does it matter? I see a page with a sentence on it. Do I need to know if it was made with a dot matrix printer, type writer, laser printer, a talented scribe, etc to know that the sentence was designed?es58_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

The argument Upright BiPed is making is about a semiotic system, it’s not about the genetic code.
Mung, if your reading comprehension came anywhere near the level of your blind anger, you would have perused the reading list that Upright offered to me, rife with references to the genetic code. And you would have devoted some contemplation to withholding hostile judgment. Upright doesn't need you to impersonate him. You are the troll, the fox who smells his own stink.Daniel King_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

My meds consist of logic, reasoning and truth. I come here to UD for a daily dose. I feel rightly outraged when I see people trying to contaminate my meds with their BS. The argument Upright BiPed is making is about a semiotic system, it's not about the genetic code. You, Danial King, are a troll. Today would be a good day for you to declare your independence.Mung_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

DK, patently, code is inherently an expression of language. Denial of same fact on your part does not constitute a sound reason to dismiss or ignore such a patently inconvenient fact on our part. If you dispute the fact, kindly give us a case where complex code and algorithms expressed in such code beyond 500 - 1,000 bits have been observed to be created by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity (transmission does not count, nor does error correction per same): _____________ . Until and unless you can show such, we are inductively entitled to go with the trillion member base of observations . . . start with the Internet . . . that consistently shows that code and algorithms expressed in such, whether source or object, are reliable signs of intelligent design as cause. Where, posts in this thread are self-referential cases in point. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING, MUNG. GET BACK ON YOUR MEDS, ASAP!Daniel King_{July 3, 2016
July
07
Jul
3
03
2016
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

When trolls grit their teeth do their teeth fall out? Is the stench emitted by a talking troll due to poor dental hygiene, or something else entirely?Mung_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Hi Troll! Oh, and Upright BiPed did not make the claim that you attribute to him. Bad Troll! Bad!Mung_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Thank you for your reply. I am familiar with the genetic code, and many of the references in your list that pertain to it. I'm more interested in whatever documentation you can provide about who, besides yourself, promotes the idea that human language and genetic coding exhibit “a universal correlate of intelligence.” ThanksDaniel King_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Origenes@141:
Suppose that archeologists find something similar to Stonehenge and infer design. Now what is stopping them from doing further investigation? What’s stopping them from e.g. looking for more clues of design?
Nothing. By the same token, what is stopping them from looking for clues of a non-design origin? Why should "design" be the only possibility worth pursuing? Frankly, Origenes, you seem to have a closed mind.Daniel King_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit
If it survives and copies itself, you now have a new line of cells with a new pattern in their DNA. This new pattern constitutes new information. You used to have one genome that could successfully run a cell, now you have two. And both the original generation and the new one are stable bases for further evolution. If the new pattern can’t run the new cell, it dies, the DNA pattern disappears, and all the cells in the original generation soldier on. That, in a nutshell, is how evolution creates information, preserves it and adds it to the genome.
If the sequential space of the genome was not almost infinite then this story might have a chance but random mutational change through almost infinite sequential space always leads to garbage. Dawkins tried to solve this in the blind watchmaker but required a target so all he showed is if you know the final sequence and can compare random change to it you will eventually get there. But...if you know the sequence up front just insert it directly into the genome :-)bill cole_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped, I owe you an apology. I completely misunderstood your question. You originally wrote, "I’d like to ask you about whatever organization that you think existed just prior to the extant system," and I thought you were making one of those "Spell out every step in the evolution of X or evolution is disproved!" demands that are so frequent. I then misunderstood you when you wrote right after that, "Did that system have to have the capacity to specify the extant system it was the predecessor of? If so, how it accomplish that?" That was my fault and I'm sorry. You're actually asking about evolutionary theory, not long lost information, and I can answer that. Your second statement's syntax is a little confusing, but assuming you're asking if the penultimate system was able to completely specify the ultimate system, and how did it do it, the answers are, "Yes" and
By being a working, living system that has a genome with 99.99999+% of the features of the ultimate system, and then copying that genome into the next generation with one mutation that adds the missing feature.
As an illustration, think of a cell where DNA is copied into RNA which makes proteins that copy DNA. Suppose that cell uses every amino acid modern cells use except one is missing. A single mutation while copying that DNA into the next generation adds that last amino acid to the mix and Shazam!, the modern cell has evolved. That's how evolution works. You always have a population of working, reproducing organisms. That's your base. Then you take just one of those organisms, make a small change to its DNA as it's reproducing, and let the new cell try to make a living with its new DNA. If it survives and copies itself, you now have a new line of cells with a new pattern in their DNA. This new pattern constitutes new information. You used to have one genome that could successfully run a cell, now you have two. And both the original generation and the new one are stable bases for further evolution. If the new pattern can't run the new cell, it dies, the DNA pattern disappears, and all the cells in the original generation soldier on. That, in a nutshell, is how evolution creates information, preserves it and adds it to the genome.MatSpirit_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Daniel King: The design inference is not empirically testable.
Why do you think so? Suppose that archeologists find something similar to Stonehenge and infer design. Now what is stopping them from doing further investigation? What's stopping them from e.g. looking for more clues of design? Or in the case of my scenario #130, why do you think that there cannot be empirical follow-up investigation that can validate (or invalidate) the design inference. Can you elaborate please?Origenes_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

DK, A semiotic system is identifiable by the properties of its organization, where a representational medium controls a dynamic process. For an object to function as a representational medium it has to be established as one within a local system. A physicist would talk about this in terms of a ”cut” that “separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control.” The cell accomplishes this cut by separating the establishment of the code from the reading of the codons -- i.e. the anticodon-to-amino acid association is spatially and temporally isolated from the codon-to-anticodon association. This is general knowledge. The organization of the system thereby establishes a discontinuity in the process, allowing an alphabet of rate-independent permutations to control rate-based dynamics. In turn, this enables an open-ended potential of referents (outcomes), making life and evolution possible. Since I cannot do any better a job of explaining it than the original authors, I can only point you to the Bibliography on Biosemiosis.org, and suggest you read Howard Pattee, a highly-esteemed physicist who studied symbol systems for five decades, and has been publishing these findings since at least 1967.
Biosemiotics is the study of all forms of signification and communication. It recognizes that life is distinguished from the nonliving world by its dependence on signs and symbols. However, of the innumerable examples of pattern recognition, recording, signaling, and communication throughout all levels of living organizations only two clear examples of open-ended, creative language systems exist, the genetic language and natural languages. (…) The fact remains that there is little evidence for the existence of any general-purpose languages other than the genes and natural languages; and there is no persuasive model of how a continuous dynamics could evolve into a general-purpose discrete coded symbol system. In fact, that is the reason the origin of life and the origin of language remain great mysteries. - H.H. Pattee
Upright BiPed_{July 2, 2016
July
07
Jul
2
02
2016
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

Daniel King
Exactly. The design inference is not empirically testable. If it were, somebody in the ID movement would be working on it. The ID community is perfectly content with the inference, full stop.
Historical sciences are not generally testable. We cannot test two specie's splitting from a common ancestor or the emergence of the first eukaryotic cell. Looking inside the cell we see molecular machines that resemble designed human machines the ribosome, ATP synthase, the spliceosome etc. The machines are built from DNA blueprints made of ordered sequences of nucleotides. The design inference is a way to rationally explain their origin and function. The random chance to get better and get selected inference is not a good explanation in my opinion. Do you know any mechanism in nature that can organize 150k nucleotides so it can produce a spliceosome?bill cole_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
Physicists who study such systems have flatly affirmed (in peer-review) that the two systems (genetic encoding and human language) are fundamentally unique among all other physical systems known to science.
Citations, please. And do those physicists opine that those two systems exhibit "a universal correlate of intelligence"?Daniel King_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Aren’t the entailments of the inference to design in my scenario not obvious enough? A hint: ppl will feel very excited and surprised.
Not obvious. What do persons' reactions to an observation have to do with testing the design inference?
Well, go for it. What is stopping you?
Are you teasing me? It's not my job to test the entailments of your hypothesis. What's stopping you? Hint: You know that your hypothesis is not testable. That's why you say that further testing is not required to move forward from the inference:
Surely further investigation, based on the design inference, is possible. But that’s not part of the design inference.
Exactly. The design inference is not empirically testable. If it were, somebody in the ID movement would be working on it. The ID community is perfectly content with the inference, full stop.Daniel King_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

It’s one thing to “infer” something, it’s another to follow up on that tentative conclusion and test its entailments.
It has been inferred for ages (by such observations as the extraordinary matching of discrete parts) that life was the product of an intelligence. Later, the inference grew with the application of additional knowledge. And in the age of molecular biology and information theory, we are able to demonstrate that the encoding of polymers inside the living cell is a semiotic system that demonstrates an exclusive set of physical conditions not found anywhere else in the cosmos but in the use of recorded language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence. Physicists who study such systems have flatly affirmed (in peer-review) that the two systems (genetic encoding and human language) are fundamentally unique among all other physical systems known to science. So now what? Are you prepared to acknowledge that a universal correlate of intelligence is physically demonstrated in the organization of the living cell? Of course not. Heave that goalpost on your back. The materialists that come here to berate ID prove every day that their positions have nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with evidence. But the evidence remains. Biosemiosis.org .Upright BiPed_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit
(5) The evolutionists are willing to tell you how that happened AND provide evidence on how, why, when and where. (6) ID just says some kind of designer created life some way at some time and in some place. For some reason we don’t have to tell you anything about how it happened, when it happened, where it happened or anything else about it because we’re ID.
There you have it. We are stuck between and abstract explanation and a bad explanation. All things being equal I would choose the abstract explanation over a bad one.bill cole_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Daniel King
DK: You ask “in what sense has the inference to design ‘no entailments…?” in reference to an imaginary scenario that resembles an anthropological investigation. Your question implies that you’ve specified some entailments of the “inference to design,” but I don’t see any in your post.
Aren’t the entailments of the inference to design in my scenario not obvious enough? A hint: ppl will feel very excited and surprised.
DK: It’s one thing to “infer” something, it’s another to follow up on that tentative conclusion and test its entailments.
Well, go for it. What is stopping you?
DK: If an inference can’t be tested, “what good is it?” Surely the investigators in your scenario wouldn’t stop at an inference to design without considering alternative hypotheses (inferences) and investigating further.
The inference is the result of testing. Alternative explanatory hypothesis have already been considered, as part of the design inference. Surely further investigation, based on the design inference, is possible. But that’s not part of the design inference.Origenes_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Origenes@130
Suppose that, during the first exploration of one of Jupiter’s moons a human research team finds an extremely heavy artifact, 10 miles diameter and firmly attached to the surface of the moon. Upon investigation ‘intelligent design’ comes out as the best explanation for the coming into existence of this artifact — however neither the designer nor its intentions can be identified. Given this context, in what sense has the inference to design “no entailments” and it what sense is it “scientifically worthless”?
Hi, Origenes. Here's what I mean by entailment: "An entailment is a deduction or implication, that is, something that follows logically from or is implied by something else." You ask "in what sense has the inference to design 'no entailments…?" in reference to an imaginary scenario that resembles an anthropological investigation. Your question implies that you've specified some entailments of the "inference to design," but I don't see any in your post. It's one thing to "infer" something, it's another to follow up on that tentative conclusion and test its entailments. If an inference can't be tested, "what good is it?" Surely the investigators in your scenario wouldn't stop at an inference to design without considering alternative hypotheses (inferences) and investigating further.Daniel King_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Mohammad @131 The design inference is not about how things are designed. "How" is a second-order question that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn — after ID has finished its job. Besides I'm not sure that I understand your argument. Are you saying that by describing how people design stuff we can arrive at a general mechanism of design, which we then can extrapolate to other areas? For example, by observing human designers, we can understand how life and the universe was designed? If that's your idea, it seems highly unlikely to me. Similarly one cannot extrapolate from animal design (by beavers, ants, spiders) to human design. The best we can do is say that intelligence is involved.Origenes_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

@Origenes Your fantasy scenario is besides the point. We can see intelligent design by people occurring in the present. Intelligent design theory must also be capable to describe how people design stuff. So your idea that intelligent design theory can just disregard how designing works, is a nonsense.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Daniel King #118,
DK:
Origenes: ID does identify neither the designer nor its intentions, but is able to show that intelligent design is the best explanation for certain aspects of reality. No more and no less.
Thank you for your frank reply. But is that it? You say ID is the best explanation, but has no entailments. That would make it worthless scientifically, wouldn’t it?
Suppose that, during the first exploration of one of Jupiter’s moons a human research team finds an extremely heavy artifact, 10 miles diameter and firmly attached to the surface of the moon. Upon investigation ‘intelligent design’ comes out as the best explanation for the coming into existence of this artifact — however neither the designer nor its intentions can be identified. Given this context, in what sense has the inference to design “no entailments” and it what sense is it “scientifically worthless”?Origenes_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT}

I take it then that you didn’t bother to read what I found for you.
I read it several years ago. The question I asked has to do with the known (fully described) structure and function of the translation apparatus, not speculation as to its origins. You might have picked up this clear distinction if you had not avoided the previous paper I suggested to you. Frankly, the question I asked of you is really not that difficult. You have stated that a system existed prior to the extant system. I asked if the prior system had to specify the existing system. This one simple question seems to overwhelm you.
Well, maybe the authors are just a bunch of toffs guzzling taxpayer money and telling lies to support the Great Satan
You once again appear to be incapable of not indulging yourself. You clearly don't need me for that.Upright BiPed_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @ 115
Oh, good. A literature bluff...
You didn't read it either, did you? Keep those opinions safe.
...coupled with this: For reasons alluded to above, I won’t ask you if ID has anything equivalent to even this little bit on how the Designer did his designing. Why do you think ID must answer the how of design? Either you misunderstand the design inference or you are just unwilling to consider the different domains.
Translation: "They're asking us for facts to back up our opinions! We don't need FACTS! We have THEORIES that prove evolution couldn't do it and we just KNOW we're right! It's like objective morality! You just KNOW!
It is your theory that is fully naturalistic and materialistic. You must have a physical mechanism that can, by itself, explain what we see in biology. No naturalistic mechanism, no naturalistic story.
Now listen closely because this is important. (1) Life exists. You can see it, touch it, measure it, weigh it and it will bite you if you don't watch out. (2) Life didn't always exist. Everybody agrees about that. Therefore (3) There must have been a time when life first appeared. (4) There are at least two explanations for how life appeared. (5) The evolutionists are willing to tell you how that happened AND provide evidence on how, why, when and where. (6) ID just says some kind of designer created life some way at some time and in some place. For some reason we don't have to tell you anything about how it happened, when it happened, where it happened or anything else about it because we're ID. In the words of Nero Wolfe, Pfui!
In contrast, ID is not a mechanistic theory.
Eric, Dembski is no longer a part of ID. The Discovery Institute let him go. He has left the building. "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories," is no longer operative.MatSpirit_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 114
Now that you’ve got your “let me google sumpthin’ to say” out of the way, perhaps you can bring yourself to actually contemplate the issues.
I take it then that you didn't bother to read what I found for you. Well, maybe the authors are just a bunch of toffs guzzling taxpayer money and telling lies to support the Great Satan, or something. From an ID standpoint, not reading is probably a good strategy. If you carefully avoid learning anything that might challenge your theories, then your theories will never be challenged.
One of the perplexing issues with the extant apparatus (as clearly noted by materialists) is that the complexity required for the actual translation of information is simply too complex to have arisen together.
Really? And how do you know that? Have you got some fossils of earliest life you're holding out on us? Have you searched all of the available rocks from that period for sub-microscopic molecular sized life and found them empty and then suddenly come across a single modern bacteria in all its glory? I think not. Or maybe you have a deep background in biology, chemistry and evolution with special knowlege of some unclimbable hill evolution is incapable of surmounting to produce the modern cell? Probably not. Or maybe you're an ID enthusiast, steadfastly avoiding any knowledge that might sway your a priori OPINION that evolution is incapable of creating modern life. I think that's the situation and I will give your OPINION all of the consideration it has earned.
Koonin suggests that an unlimited number of universes will be required if a coupled translation system is to appear as a matter of stochastic processes.
Eugene Koonin is a biologist specializing in evolutionary and computational biology. He's not an Origin Of Life researcher and his idea that we need multiple universes to explain the STOCHASTIC production of DNA life had everybody who IS in the OOL field sucking in their breath and wondering what was on about. His idea that the first modern cell was created in one go by chance (that's what stochastic means in this context, after all) hit the OOL community with a soft plop, sank into the swamp and was never seen again. The ID community, on the other hand, was delighted to find any real life scientist they agreed with, even if he was from outside the OOL field and his peers thought he was nuts. They have kept his name alive ever since. It would be interesting to know about what his opinion of ID is and how he feels about this adulation, but he doesn't talk about it very much. Perhaps the toffs are threatening his grants?
So, I am asking: did the proposed prior system have to specify the current system or not? And if it did, then how did it do it?
This must be what, "Written in jello." means. WHAT "prior system"? WHAT "curent system"? OOL probably took several million years to go from the first replicator, whatever it was, to modern DNA based systems. Do you want every step described in detail? How would you know if my description was right if you don't know what any system prior to the DNA system was like? Give us some fossils.MatSpirit_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: "how the Designer did his designing" Why does it matter? I see a page with a sentence on it. Do I need to know if it was made with a dot matrix printer, type writer, laser printer, a talented scribe, etc to know that the sentence was designed?es58_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Maybe Matspirit is not deliberately trolling, it is just that he is a materialist, and so he pays no attention to subjective things like honesty, fairness, truthfulness, sincerity.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit: Sorry for calling you one. Why not apologize for being a bigot while you're in the mood to admit personal failures?Mung_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply