So Much Wrong, Part 5: thunderf00t and Sexual Harassment


Here’s the fifth — and final — part of my series on thunderf00t’s horrible post about sexual harassment.

As some of you may know, videoblogger thunderf00t has recently joined the Freethought Blogs network — and has weighed in on the conversation about sexual harassment at conferences. Saying, essentially and among many other things, that:

*THIS REALLY ISN’T A BIG PROBLEM*

and that:

Put simply, YES talking about sexual harassment can sometimes be a bigger problem than sexual harassment.

There is so much wrong packed into this one post, I could write an entire novel-length systematically dismantling everything that’s wrong with it. But I don’t have time or energy for that today… and I can’t imagine anyone having it in them to read it anyway. So I’m going to look at one piece of this wrong at a time, until I get bored or otherwise sick of it.

The wrong for today:

2) The VAST majority of people at these conferences are civil, honest, respectable folks. Giving people a list of things they are and are not allowed to do in the bars in the evenings gives the impression that this is not a conference for grown-ups but an expensive and repressive day/night care where your every action will be vigilantly vetted for dis-approval by the conference organizers. Put simply this sort of thing is a killjoy for the civil, honest respectable majority.

Nobody is disputing the fact that most people at conferences are civil, honest, respectable folks. The issue is that a small handful of people can make an event seriously unpleasant and horrible for lots of other people. Especially since harassers often harass more than person. (Even if only five guys at a conference behave obnoxiously and invasively… if each of them behaves this way with ten women, that’s fifty women harassed.)

And I am baffled at this idea that a code of conduct at a conference gives the impression that the attendees are not adults, or that their every action will be vigilantly vetted. I have been to lots of events with codes of conduct, from conferences to concerts to sex parties, and I have never gotten this impression. The impression I have gotten is that:

a) the organizers recognize that most of its attendees are civil, honest, respectable folks… but if the event is big enough and/or open to the public, there’s probably going to be a handful of uncivil, skeezy, irresponsible jerks — so the organizers are letting these jerks know that their behavior won’t be tolerated;

b) the organizers recognize that social expectations vary in different situations, and even civil, honest, respectable folks may not know what’s expected in this particular setting — so the organizers are letting attendees know what the guidelines are here.

Like I said yesterday: The existence of laws and rules, as long as they’re reasonable and fair and fairly enforced, does not make most people feel like they’re being vigilantly vetted by killjoys. (I examined this idea in more detail in yesterday’s post, so I’m not going to repeat it here.)

Now, if particular details of a particular code of conduct seem either too restrictive or too vague, by all means, say so. That’s a conversation that’s worth having. But that is very different from an attack on the very idea of a code of conduct. And it’s very different indeed from an attack on absurdly exaggerated strawman versions of codes of conduct that nobody has adopted or even proposed.

If I want to chew on some womans leg in a bar, I don’t want to have to consult the conference handbook to see if this classes as acceptable behavior!

(Photo of thunderf00t biting a laughing woman’s leg in a bar, with the caption, “The screaming ones always taste better!”)

This has now been said many times by many people, including me. But it’s important, and it warrants repeating:

Do you want to know if this behavior classes as acceptable behavior?

Ask the woman whose leg you’re biting.

That’s what the codes of conduct say. You have to get consent first. If you have a long-standing friendly relationship, with a standing agreement that okays physical horseplay and leg-biting — fine. That counts as consent. But whether you got that consent months or years ago when you first started hanging around with this person, or whether you’re getting it right this minute from someone you just met and whose leg you want to bite… you have to get their consent.

You don’t have to consult the conference organizers if you want to touch someone. You don’t have to consult the conference handbook. You have to consult the person you want to touch. That’s what the codes of conduct say.

And if someone thinks that’s a repressive policy instituted by killjoys — then I don’t want them at any conference I’m going to attend.

It’s a bar….boys AND girls and have fun in bars! Sure sometime people misjudge situations, and sure there will be a few bad apples (who usually, and quite rightly, get their actions addressed at some point). But like I say, IT’S A BAR!! and those are the rules of engagement in bars, as the old saying goes, if you are gonna eat tuna, you gotta expect some bones!

Please let me know which bars you go to — so I can be sure to avoid them.

Not so I can avoid you. So I can avoid the bars.

I do not want to go to any bar where the implied “rules of engagement” are that I should expect to be touched without my consent. I do not want to go to any bar where the “bones” I’m supposed to expect include giving up my right to decide who will and will not touch me. I do not want to go to any bar where any obnoxious, invasive, or harassing behavior short of law-breaking is tolerated, and where any complaint of mine is met with the equivalent of, “Call the cops. Oh, he wasn’t breaking the law? Then shut up.” I do not want to go to any bar where my clearly stated desire to not be harassed is seen as ruining everyone else’s fun.

I don’t want that at bars — and I don’t want it at conferences. Or at bars outside/ after/ as part of conferences. Lots of women don’t want it. We’ve been putting up with this attitude our whole lives… and we’re sick of it. That isn’t fun for us. We want to have fun, too. And we think our idea of fun matters. We want conference organizers to listen to us. Sexual harassment is a real thing that happens a distressing amount of the time at these conferences, and women are finally starting to talk about it and to ask that something be done about it. This isn’t an unreasonable request, or even an unusual one: codes of conduct are standard operating procedure at conferences. We’re not asking atheist/ skeptical conferences to blaze new trails here. We’re asking them to catch up with the rest of the world.

And if you think — as you seem to — that sexual harassment at conferences is a minor issue that’s being blown up all out of proportion, that your desire to horse around at bars without impediment is more important than women’s desire to attend atheist/ skeptical conferences and the social events connected with them without being harassed, and that the women speaking up about all this are just ruining the fun for everyone else… how shall I say this?

Your concerns are noted. Thank you for sharing.

Thus endeth the lesson. thunderf00t has written more on this, both in the original post and in two follow-ups, including a follow-up that replied to this series. But I’m getting bored with this now, and the balance in my brain on the “irritating/ interesting and potentially useful” scale is tipping towards “irritating.” The follow-ups didn’t say anything substantially different from what was said in the previous post, so I’m going to knock it off now. I think I’ve made my point.

Comments

  1. thetalkingstove says

    Excellent summkary. Thunderfoot clearly isn’t particularly informed on this issue, nor does he apparently want to be. His primary concern is not having his fun spoiled by a policy that only encourages basically decent human behaviour.

    And that there are apparently “rules of engagement” in bars which mean you should just expect inappropriate behaviour and not take any steps to combat harassment …just a horrible sentiment.

  2. John Morales says

    [meta]

    A fine final part of your rebuttal, Christina!

    For me, the two most salient parts of your post (and a fine adumbration, I think):

    Now, if particular details of a particular code of conduct seem either too restrictive or too vague, by all means, say so. That’s a conversation that’s worth having. But that is very different from an attack on the very idea of a code of conduct. And it’s very different indeed from an attack on absurdly exaggerated strawman versions of codes of conduct that nobody has adopted or even proposed.
    […]
    You don’t have to consult the conference organizers if you want to touch someone. You don’t have to consult the conference handbook. You have to consult the person you want to touch. That’s what the codes of conduct say.

  3. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Oops. I should’ve written eiter Ms Christina or Greta there — sorry.

  4. Rilian says

    If the people running the conferences don’t want to be reasonable, then reasonable people should refuse to play with them, and just start their own conferences.

  5. says

    Thank you for the breakdowns, Greta. I don’t blame you for not wanting to continue. Thunderf000t continues to repeat the same tired things over and over again as if that makes them right. Time to move on to more constructive activities.

    Like the new SecularWoman.org site and organization! I’m kind of excited about them.

  6. Switchhttr says

    Excellent series.

    The only point I would add is one I thought of during the height of Elevatorgate when Dawkins doubled down on his “muslima” letter with the comment/post that started, “Just words.” Put in the mouth of an attorney, it’s this:

    “Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.”

    Put another way, there’s no truth-in-labeling law for people. That means there’s no way to know who will harass others until they do it, and there’s no way to know in the moment that it will only be “just words”. Mind reading and time travel not being proven to work, how is anyone supposed to know they’re in the presence of a harasser (or even a rapist) until the deed is attempted?

    Given that, prevention is all the more important. Is it pleasant to be categorized, even briefly, as a potential harasser? No, but so long as we have no other way of knowing that in advance, it will remain a hard reality.

  7. m5 says

    I’ve been a rave/club/bar event promoter for 10 years. I have kicked guys with this attitude to the street more than once. I bet if you talked to some bouncers in his general vicinity, they’d have some stories.

  8. says

    “Your concerns are noted. Thank you for sharing.”

    Brilliant euphemism.

    Yeah – Thunderf00t practically said, “Boys will be boys” – which is the attitude that my school took when I was growing up. My school was NOT a safe place – and any woman who complained or even those that reported rape were met with being dismissed, socially ostracized, and sometimes even retaliation – depending on the social status of the other person. Men would harassed as well – openly – and nothing done about it, because you know, boys are boys and don’t need protection. It was horrible. Only when I was about to graduate did we get an administration that treated the problem seriously.

    I think he has this idea that once you get into the adult world that these things don’t happen or that everyone gets magical powers the moment they turn 18.

    I’m sure where-ever he works has a code of conduct. They probably even have compulsory training.

    My school got 10 times better by JUST having a principle that said, “This is unacceptable” instead of one that literally said, “Boys will be boys.”

  9. Laura-Ray says

    I attend sex positive parties with black out drunk people before and we don’t get harassment because of the rules we have, which mainly involve not having cameras or taking pictures, not inviting strangers, and treating the people at the party like people. Also, only fuck inside a house, inside a room, with the permission of the person whose room it is XD wenhave the funnest fucking parties around because we can afford to trust eachother, and we know that people who act like jackasses will be forcibly kicked out, and socially shunned by that group of people. We keep an unofficial list of people who we don’t allow at these parties cause they acted like creeps. And, I reiterate, because of this our parties are more fun and less restrained than, say, a free for all frat party. IMO, rules that make people feel safe will be more conducive to sex positive partying. I will be more likely to be okay with horseplay of I know I have control and support in the situation! I’ll be more likely to flirt if I feel like I’m being accepted as a human being before being accepted as a glorious pair of tits.
    So yeah, calling bullshit on thunderbum. More rules, more respect, more safety, better sexytimes.

  10. Laura-Ray says

    Sorry about any spelling/grammatical errors, I’m on my phone which only shows me the sentence before the one I’m writing XD

  11. Nurse Ingrid says

    I am so sick of these guys who are convinced that their overgrown frat-guy antics are somehow glamorously transgressive. As if the privileged classes, from feudal lords to robber barons, haven’t been behaving this way for centuries. It doesn’t make you cool, or punk rock, or rebellious. It is utterly banal status quo.

  12. says

    M.A. Melby

    “Your concerns are noted. Thank you for sharing.”

    Brilliant euphemism.

    Yeah – Thunderf00t practically said, “Boys will be boys”…

    That distills much of the issue for me. I think it shows the common thread between misogyny and the increasingly vocal pro-bullying chunk of American culture we’re seeing, where the bullying victim is blamed for “encouraging” the bully, because the bully can’t be held responsible for his actions because bullying is just an unchangeable, inherent part of his nature.

    My school got 10 times better by JUST having a principle that said, “This is unacceptable” instead of one that literally said, “Boys will be boys.”

    I’m not surprised. There’s far too many ready excuses for barbarians to engage in barbarism. We need more people who refuse to accept it in positions of authority.

  13. StevoR says

    @12. Laura-Ray :

    “Sorry about any spelling/grammatical errors, I’m on my phone which only shows me the sentence before the one I’m writing XD”

    So you’ve got a valid excuse then?

    {Monty Python Yorkshireman voice} “Looooxxurry! Pure LLLoooooooxury!” {/Monty Python Yorkshireman voice}

    I’m just a lousy typer.

    And somehow preview always seems good .. until I click ‘submit’ and then and only then will I notice all the spelling (& other) errors I swear weren’t there a second or two earlier!

  14. says

    Nurse Ingrid speaks for me. As a beta male geek, those kinds of guys make for a very uncomfortable and unsafe environment for me, too.

    This whole thing is making me wonder why Thunderf00t was brought aboard in the first place. He’s pissing me off not only with his frat-boy mentality, but with his persistent mediocrity in writing and reasoning. It’s one thing to critique the people who have been advocating for policy changes at conventions, but Thunderf00t seems able to come up with nothing better than petty, outraged tantrums hurling insults at the very people who were courteous enough to welcome him aboard. So far as I can see, he adds nothing to the site in general. Even Loftus had something to say, and could articulate it in a meaningful way.

  15. says

    I think the thing that got me the most about this is how much it relied on standard sexist tropes and that Thunderf00t made little to no attempt to disown the sexist implications thereof, even in several follow-ups. It’s like he didn’t care about sexism at all.

  16. says

    @ Bronze Dog

    I appreciate the support!

    Having said that though, I think one misconception that some people have is that those that want some sort of harassment policy think that making rules will magically make the problem disappear. I don’t know why they think everyone is so naive.

    You can be realistic and still not stand for it when it happens and attempt to prevent it as much as possible in reasonable ways.

    What upset me most is: “… and such problems can of course be dealt with quickly and discretely without spoiling the fun for everyone else (the modus operandi of most nightclubs).”

    Essentially – if there is a problem he wants it dealt with “discretely” to avoid ruining other people’s fun. I don’t know if he realizes how much pressure is on ANYONE who has been harassed to be quiet about it, tolerate it, and be *discrete* to avoid being a killjoy, to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the harasser, and avoid backlash.

    Apparently, he doesn’t just think that is okay – but is upset that others do not have that attitude.

  17. says

    @ Chris Hall

    I checked him out on YouTube a while ago, for no other reason than he was popular.

    As far as I can tell, his mode of operation is to find ridiculous creationist stuff on YouTube (like Way of the Master or VenomFangX) and answer some of their assertions – but it just seemed like easy-shots and mockery. So, I didn’t get very far in the “Why do people laugh at Creationists” series – and eventually unsubscribed.

    Unlike “The Amazing Atheist” who I would be horrified if freethought blogs invited; TF doesn’t seem like such a bad guy. I really hoped that he would (in general) learn a little humility.

    As far as the new bloggers go – I was thrilled to see ZJ here.

  18. says

    - As in Zinnia Jones! I’m a huge fan. –

    Too bad TF is getting hogging the attention by saying things he knows are going to annoy people and illicit responses and comments.

  19. Rich Wilson says

    Final straw for me was his claim that kids represent some of the sexual harassment problem. Really? Children?

  20. Christophe says

    I remain simply astonished that this is in the least bit controversial. The one that tore it for me was the “well, what about *handshakes*?” thing, which demonstrates that we’ve moved into the realm of, at best, arguing for its own sake.

    Maybe things are different in some other strange planet, but the way I offer a handshake is to extend my hand in the universally-recognized gesture meaning, “Would you like to shake hands?” The other party can then accept my offer, and we shake hands, or the other part can decline, which is somewhat awkward but that’s life.

    What I do *not* do is walk up, grab the other party’s hand, and push it into mine, and I doubt even TF does that. So, in what way a policy of “no touching without consent” means “no handshaking” is completely baffling to me.

    But here’s the real problem, speaking as one straight man to others: If your reaction to a policy that women are requesting is to say, either to yourself or others, “Wow, that will inhibit my ability to get laid,” the problem is not the policy or the women, but the ways you think you have to behave in order to get laid.

  21. LawnBoy says

    Unfortunately, TF doesn’t seem to be taking any of Greta’s disagreement to heart.

    In his latest video, he reads off his original post and ridicules PZ for disagreeing with it. Just PZ; not Greta.

    Sigh

  22. John Horstman says

    @23:

    But here’s the real problem, speaking as one straight man to others: If your reaction to a policy that women are requesting is to say, either to yourself or others, “Wow, that will inhibit my ability to get laid,” the problem is not the policy or the women, but the ways you think you have to behave in order to get laid.

    Yahtzee! I was having a debate with a friend about establishing enthusiastic consent, and his point eventually came down to, “But that’s just how people behave,” to which I responded, “Exactly. That’s rape culture, that’s a problem, and that’s what I want to change by promoting active consent.”

  23. Smhlle says

    I was just scrolling down this page. What jumped out at me, aside from Greta’s cute pics, was the statement about the vast majority of the people at these events being well behaved. I just want to take a minute to assert that who people meet at conventions and smaller gatherings is not random. A good looking young woman, especially one who appears to be unpartnered and unchaperoned, is likely to meet more than her fair and random share of sexually aggressive men. Her chances of getting through the event without meeting the guy with the crudest manners might not be good. I don’t always have huge empathy for people who are better looking than I am, but today I do.

  24. 'Tis Himself says

    Chris Hall #17

    So far as I can see, he adds nothing to the site in general. Even Loftus had something to say, and could articulate it in a meaningful way.

    Besides the mendacity of what Thunderfool is writing, he’s actually a poor writer. I don’t like what he’s saying and I don’t like how he’s saying it. For both reasons I will not be frequenting his blog.

  25. crystalsinger says

    There seems to be an element of “but by laying down these rules, you’re suggesting that *I* am someone who behaves badly!” in TF’s little tanties.

    We see this a lot whenever women (politely, reasonably, but forcefully) call for guys not to be assholes in a whole range of contexts. There is often a great wailing of “but *I* don’t behave like that! How DARE you suggest that ALL MEN are $category!”

    #ProTip for TF & his ilk: I you genuinely don’t engage in the bad behaviour being described, then THE CONCERN IS NOT ABOUT YOU. Stop acting as if you personally are being called out unreasonably.

  26. felixBC says

    Thanks for writing the series; enjoyable and hilarious.

    The one thing that still annoys me is that Thunderf00t has been allowed to set the definition of what harassment at conferences is; he says it’s mostly outside bars, posts a picture of hijinks at a bar, and, lo and behold, everyone’s talking about what happens in bars.

    No. I’ve been sexually harassed in a setting much like a conference (week long workshops in a rural setting), and while a lot of us retired to the bars in the evening, the harassment took place during the day, from the invited speakers towards the staff, and in front of participants on campus. No drunken hijinks, just straight up sober sexual harassment.

    “it seems to me that such acts overwhelming happen in the bars outside the conference.”
    “My straw poll estimate from half a dozen such meetings is that the ‘harassment’ that goes on in the bars at such meetings is little different from that you would find in practically any other bar in the country.”

    And we’re off. Harassment isn’t a big deal, it only happens to minority, and it overwhelmingly happens “in the bars outside the conference”.

    Why does he get to define what harassment is and where it happens, and then write it off?

    I just wish his critics hadn’t followed his lead on defining harassment away from the actual conferences. Because I’m not going to take his word on this.

  27. John Clavis says

    Thank you for the series. I think I’m subscribed to TFoot’s YouTube videos (although I’m subscribed from way back to a lot of people I don’t watch anymore), so I stumbled across his latest video and thereby learned about this whole sexual harassment policy tumult. I thought he made some good points when I watched his video. Then I came here and read your 5-part reaction, and I have to say that your pro-policy arguments (and the follow-up points made by commenters under the 5 posts) make a hell of a lot more sense than TFoot’s anti-policy arguments, which really seem to come down to a single point of disagreement — the specific inclusion in said policy of a “don’t touch before asking” rule.

    My most charitable (and initial) assumption is that TFoot comes from a culture and a community where you can touch each other far more freely. Now, perhaps part of that is due to misogyny and chauvinism. Perhaps all of it. But it seems clear that, at a certain point, TFoot’s focus became who did or did not straw-man him, and whether people are making coherent follow-up points according to his selective quotations and, frankly, hard-to-follow comments. (Also, I don’t think TFoot has a statistical leg to stand on when he implies that female attendance of TAM is down because of the publication of an official sexual harassment policy.)

    It’s unfortunate when arguments become about the argument, as it seems to have become for TFoot.

    Anyway, I’m glad I read your series, and I agree with much of what has been said here. I have had my consciousness raised enough times in terms of what women deal with in this world to know better than to think that having an explicit policy would hurt more than it helps. Thanks again for your posts. They were rewarding and educational.

    I went to Burning Man four times, and associated events many more times, years ago. To me, there was nothing more important than making sure everybody felt safe, comfortable, protected and cared about. How else are you going to have a good time?

    TFoot has a solution if he wants to attend a skeptics event with no explicit sexual harassment policy — he can organize one.

  28. LeftSidePositive says

    which really seem to come down to a single point of disagreement — the specific inclusion in said policy of a “don’t touch before asking” rule.

    I really think it’s more like saying that asking before touching is the operative definition for the purposes of enforcement: a “gold standard,” if you will. It’s not to say that in no circumstances may someone touch without verbally asking, but rather it is to say that if Person A comes up to the conference organizer and says “Person B was creeping me the fuck out when ze did X,” the organizer’s standards for enforcement will be “Did Person B have explicit consent from Person A to do X?” In other words, “I can tell she totally wanted it” is not going to fly. “Misreading signals” is not an excuse for poor behavior–if you do something to someone that ze doesn’t like, you are responsible NO MATTER WHAT justifications were going on in your head.

    Now, if Person A really did want Person B to do X and they communicated this to each other nonverbally, HOW exactly would this even get on the radar screen of a harassment policy?!

  29. Amphigorey says

    crystalsinger at #28 nails it. Thunderf00t is obviously taking this very personally, which is why he’s having such a snitfit, and why he won’t listen to other people. He thinks we’re talking about his behavior, which is why he brought up the leg-biting, but doesn’t grok the blindingly obvious point that since the owner of the leg didn’t have a problem with it, nobody cares that he bit her leg. He’s hung up on the idea that a harassment policy will somehow prevent all future leg-biting on his part, and he can’t see past his own teeth.

  30. John Clavis says

    LeftSidePositive, yes, that point — that the policy is there for protection, and the chances that it will be abused by psychopaths who trick people into touching them innocently so they can get them kicked out of skeptics’ conferences — is pretty much the argument-winner right there. Although again, it’s hard to understand exactly what TFoot’s argument is. He seems to be arguing that an explicit policy is a net negative, despite the positives. In other words, not why have one, but why *not* have one? And I think TFoot’s argument against is very weak, especially compared to the argument for, as presented here by Ms. Christina and commenters. So thanks again to everyone!

  31. John Clavis says

    Sorry, that should have read “…and the chances that it will be abused by psychopaths who trick people into touching them innocently so they can get them kicked out of skeptics’ conference is incredibly low…”

  32. julian says

    @John Clavis

    Not to mention that sort of manipulative behavior would easily get someone kicked out from any conference unless the conference was Trolls Unlimited.

  33. says

    I read some comments from some Tfoot supporters elsewhere and I just want to scream and do some unspeakable acts of violence on the air in my room. Virtually everything I read would have easily been retooled to trivialize any sort of discrimination, including discrimination against atheists. They pushed so many red buttons it was like they were deliberately trying to anger me, even though I had no presence in the thread. I can’t even decide if that’d be more infuriating than if they were doing it out of their cluelessness.

    The worst part was that one was framing PZ as being “hysterical” and lacking the “balls” because he was obviously just a pawn of the womenfolk with no will or desires of his own.

  34. Jackie says

    I find it interesting — and very telling — that he feels policed and attacked by the code of conduct, rather than protected. It seems, when he reads it, that he automatically interprets it to say, “YOU are not allowed to touch anyone else without their explicit consent,” rather than, “No one else is allowed to touch YOU without YOUR explicit consent.” Because that’s how I read it; the code of conduct protects me against non-consensual touching by others. I don’t feel accused or threatened by the reciprocal fact that I am not allowed to non-consensually touch others. One wonders why he feels differently.

  35. noneedforaname says

    re : ” the organizers recognize that social expectations vary in different situations, and even civil, honest, respectable folks may not know what’s expected in this particular setting — so the organizers are letting attendees know what the guidelines are here.”

    Sorry – but I outright reject this mentality on it’s face. It’s nanny-ism at it’s absolute worst. Assuming reasonable people are not capable of making reasonable decisions is ridiculous. Especially in this context. It’s a basic gathering of people. It’s not exactly some unique experience with it’s own unique set of rules. Standard reasonable social norms generally apply. Don’t treat people like they’re stupid.

    That’s not to say harassment isn’t a problem (it is), or assholes shouldn’t be dealt with (they should). But isn’t that line of thinking one of the concepts “free thinking people” rally against in the first place?

  36. Marlo Rocci says

    The tone of this blog suggests fear of harassment has overtaken the actual level of harassment. I feel we’ve entered a sexual Mcarthy era. In none of these posts have I seen any number that suggests numbers disporportionate to normal society. In fact, I suspect the behavior of men at these conferences is better than the rest of society. However, since they are being judged against perfection, satisfaction with male behavior will always be unachieved.

  37. says

    @39: Sexual McCarthyism? Are you afraid you’ll get blacklisted. If you’d read the whole series, you’d have seen that Greta said that harassment doesn’t need to be worse than other places to be worth doing anything about.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply