Quote of the week – where the hockey pucks go

Bristlecones tend to clog regular plumbing

Dr. Bradley (of MBH98 hockey stick fame) really outdoes himself this time.

‘Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’ as Bradley put it.

The reliability of his findings has been confirmed by more than a decade of testing and scrutiny by the field. And yet the campaign to discredit what he and almost all of his colleagues accept as the fact of human-influenced global warming has made significant gains in popular and political culture over the past decade. “


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pull My Finger
June 8, 2011 8:38 am

the hockey stick is a brick outhouse… full of s**t.

June 8, 2011 8:42 am

Wow, he almost sounds like he believes his own nonsense.

Brian D
June 8, 2011 8:45 am

‘Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’
Not as robust as what comes out of him while he’s in that outhouse. LOL

June 8, 2011 8:47 am

It’s the exclusion principle again. We’d all like to exclude “I could be wrong.”

June 8, 2011 8:50 am

“for their children’s sake”
Yep…do it for the children! Typical emotional appeal when the logic fails.

golf charley
June 8, 2011 8:51 am

To extend on my post at Climate Audit.
They had a preordained plan for their outhouse and knew they wanted it strong. Brick seemed like a good idea.
A trip to the builders merchant revealed a waiting time for brick, but various timbers were on offer. In the absence of a suitable saw, they spotted a pile of bristlecone pine, all cut to the right lengths, though labelled “not for structural use”, it seemed the easy way to go, so much easier than all that measuring and cutting etc
So they built the walls out of bristlecone pine, and the roof out of brick when it did arrive.
Hey presto, an imploding out house, made out of brickwork

June 8, 2011 8:52 am

The outhouse is a great analogy. Ones that are locked up and sealed may look good from the outside but when you go in to use them they stink to high heaven. However, those that are a bit more open and have good airflow and ventilation are much less noxious.

greg holmes
June 8, 2011 8:56 am

Rather sad I feel, unfortunate when others look at your work and tell you it is incorrect, but that is the way things are in the real world.

June 8, 2011 8:56 am

Sherwood “Sherry” Boehlert used to be my congressman until he retired. He claimed to be a republican,,, but republicans in New York are quite different than those in most other states. It doesn’t surprise me at all that he would protect a warmist sitting before the House Science Committee that he used to chair.

Richard Percifield
June 8, 2011 9:02 am

When you run out of catalogs and corn cobs, what is left? Bristle Cones! The most robust cleaning method to date. Guaranteed to increase your climate sensitivity, CO2 or not.

Grumpy Old Man
June 8, 2011 9:04 am

The simple ‘Hockey Stick’ caters neither for the MWP nor the LIA. For these two periods, there is more than ample anecdotal evidence no matter what the Bristlecone Pine says. It remains that tree rings can be a useful dating mechanism but their comment on climate (actually weather) is not well established apart from major global events like massive volcanic eruptions. The science is not settled and there is a long way to go.

June 8, 2011 9:09 am

“Pull my finger” – you stated my thoughts perfectly!
Was Bradley, the dim bulb, even thinking when he chose the outhouse analogy?
Especially after a full 10 days of Weiner jokes on the National front!
This is so appropriate — Bradley/Mann/Stick/Outhouse. I will always connect these 4 words.

June 8, 2011 9:09 am

As a hockey loving Canadian might I remind Dr. Bradley that today’s hockey stick is made of composite material that has a tendency to explode to pieces on contact while in the process of performing a slapshot 40% of the time. Perhaps its only fitting Dr. Bradley why your hockey stick and the NHL hockey stick have so much in common as both have failed to deliver in the crunch. While I hasten to add the National Hockey League is at least inquiring why so many composite hockey sticks have failed at critical times in the game. Maybe you could follow the NHL example Dr. Bradley and inquire why YOUR composite hockey stick failed the test of real world climate. Perhaps you might want to read some of the articles at this site and educated yourself to your many failures. We in the hockey world seek to improve our product – YOU, sir, might at least follow our example.

June 8, 2011 9:13 am

I hope one day that he gets ‘tarred and feathered’ with the product of said outhouse, and all his ‘Team’ pals with him.
Scientifically robust ? – FFS ! – I feel a single monkey on a typewrite could have produced more reliable research in half the time at a billionth of the cost!
I should imagine there is more scientific integrity shown by the average amoeba than some of these guys.

Tom Bakewell
June 8, 2011 9:16 am

I believe the Boston Globe belongs in that outshouse where it might actually be of some use.

June 8, 2011 9:18 am

Steve M. has a nice retort to this as well. http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/08/built-like-an-outhouse/

June 8, 2011 9:19 am

He really really could have picked a better analogy that an outhouse. OMG is that how they view their science?. Actually I concurr.

June 8, 2011 9:22 am

I love the brick outhouse thing. The normal reference is something like, “she is built like a brick outhouse”. You would expect curves are involved with the reference to femininity. The only place left for the AGW hockey stick is in the collection pit.
The stick still stinks, and Bradley is still in denial.

Alan Moorhouse
June 8, 2011 9:24 am

Shame the roof fell in….

June 8, 2011 9:27 am

Woo Hoo! Talk about a mixed metaphor. It would be brilliant if the guy had his tongue in his cheek. As it is, I’d call it inept use of the brick sh*t-house cliche’ yoked to the much overused adjective; “robust”. The statement is also an odd way to vouch for the scientific quality of anything. I can go along with the idea that the science of the hockeystick is as intricate as an outhouse. It sure ain’t a palace.
… and just what is that brown stuff at the end of that hockey stick? OMG, it’s, it’s “sh*t-on-a-stick”

Theo Goodwin
June 8, 2011 9:28 am

I would like to ask Carlo Rotella whether the author of the book actually rebuts one important criticism of the the Hockey Stick. If so, I would like to invite Rotella or the author of the book to state the rebuttal here. If they did, they would find that their reasoning does not withstand scrutiny. It is time to drop the hype and pick up argument, something that Warmista have avoided at all costs.

June 8, 2011 9:29 am

Need to remember the the Boston Glob is owned by the NY Slimes….
Sadly people up here think it’s the word of God.

Douglas DC
June 8, 2011 9:39 am

Now that it is warm in the East US, where the population is, we will hear all summer about how it’s worse than we thought, with no reference to the record snows and cold in the West.
Which, of course will be blamed on AGW…

June 8, 2011 9:40 am

Outhouses stink no matter how ‘sturdy’ they are.
Does match the odious ‘hockeystick’ output though.
I as well I can’t believe they used this old and rather morose saying as an analogy. Still they cover, lie, and try to explain their bad scientific methodology is almost laughable were it not so costly.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
June 8, 2011 9:45 am

To quote MacIntyre, “You just can’t make this stuff up.” These people continue to reveal themselves for the cranks that they are.
Good luck selling that analogy to the public & asking them to pony up for a carbon tax.

June 8, 2011 9:49 am

The tone of the book review is thus: Bradley had to suffer all sorts of attacks and personal slurs by ‘fringe- dwellers” because of his scientific acumen. .
The author uses no less than 5 slurs on those that would dare to question Bradley.
The author’s American Studies class must be interesting. Although an English PHD, the section on literary irony escaped him.

Steve Keohane
June 8, 2011 9:50 am

Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’ as Bradley put it. “Brick Outhouse”= bad analogy. They were not built out of brick for a reason. As they filled to a certain level, one would fill the remainder with a layer of lime, and the remainder with dirt. The hole from which the dirt came is the new’ honey’ pit, for placing the WOOD outhouse upon. Should one use brick, eventually it becomes full and useless, not robust.

June 8, 2011 9:52 am

“The book came out of the frustration and aggravation of my own experience,’’ Bradley said on the phone recently, “and mine was by no means the worst. Good scientists like Ben Santer, Mike Mann, and Phil Jones have received the blunt end of it.

June 8, 2011 9:54 am

It’s probably quite a good place to keep trying to polish that turd !!

June 8, 2011 9:56 am

Today’s Science Digest
Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Higher Than It Was Just Before Ancient Episode of Severe Global Warming
“Our findings suggest that humankind may be causing atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase at rates never previously seen on Earth, which would suggest that current temperatures will potentially rise much faster than they did during the PETM,” concluded Dr Harding.”
They are talking about:
“Around 55.9 million years ago, Earth experienced a period of intense global warming known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which lasted for around 170,000 years. During its main phase, average annual temperatures rose by around 5°C.”
Mega Panic

June 8, 2011 10:18 am

Steve M’s comments on the image provided by Jeff Id at Climate Audit just cracked me up. Thanks to the Hockey Team for so much unintended comic relief!

Grumpy Old Man UK
June 8, 2011 10:21 am

That’s Grumpy Old Man USA, not Grumpy Old Man UK.

June 8, 2011 10:23 am

Seems to be …
Downward Projection.
Hard to hide the decline in an outhouse.

June 8, 2011 10:34 am

The White Mountains, home of the most famous Bristlecone stands, are this morning, June 8th, covered in fresh snow from at least 8,000ft. Totally white with snow. Most of the time in winter they don’t have that much snow on them.
And should you make a visit to the Patriarch Grove, be sure to look up hill. You will see all the dead trees that during the Medieval and Roman Optimums colonised well above the current tree line.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 8, 2011 10:36 am

A brick outhouse… Sounds great if you either don’t consider the possibility of having to someday move it over a fresh hole, or outright are certain that’ll never happen. As it is, the need for moving wasn’t considered, the hole is fouled and overflowing… But the proponents of (C)AGW just can’t abandon that robustly-built outhouse, and are ever-so-happy to keep on using it, and tell everyone just how much they like it! They’ll gladly recommend it to anyone they can!

June 8, 2011 10:37 am

Just a hunch here…Is the distinguished Doctor up for an award or a big grant in the near future? He seems to be getting out in front of the media or some reason.

June 8, 2011 10:45 am

Then, lets huff and puff together to bring that outhouse down. The bricks might be robust but not the mortar that was used to put it together.

June 8, 2011 10:48 am

Hmmm – an endurance ride in Colorado was just cancelled due to snow drifts blocking the road to the campsite.
A hockey stick would be most appropriate in this case given things are still frozen at this date … so where is that hockey stick warming that was going to reduce the snow pack in the west?

June 8, 2011 10:49 am

bushy says: “He really really could have picked a better analogy that an outhouse. OMG is that how they view their science?. Actually I concur…”
It’s really a very apt metaphor, Bushy. I strongly suspect that Bradley’s unconscious mind selected it deliberately. Underneath it all, he knows the truth. Let’s send him a copy of his press release in ten years.

Paul Milligan
June 8, 2011 10:57 am

I think the comments at the end of this Boston Globe unusually biased towards an AGW viewpoint. I wonder if this is typical for Boston Globe readers or if there will be a resurgence of pro-AGW views.

Crispin in Waterloo
June 8, 2011 10:58 am

Wil, your point is well taken. Hockey sticks are indeed ‘composite’ fabrications made from different inputs:, one part made unnaturally straight (the handle) and the other made of a plastic material forced into a heated mould so as to take on the shape desired by the fabricator, tacked onto the end with a tiny notice on it in fine print reading, “Tacked onto the end,” hidden inside the socket.
As for being robust, the description of what things look like from outside and what it smells like inside when we are allowed to open the door and find out what is really in there – wow. The door was pried open by McIntyre and Co. What they found was ‘robust’ all right. Something about ‘stinks’ and ‘high heaven’.
It has been my opinion for a while now that MBH ’98 is the most discredited publication to appear in a major journal in recent decades, and still remain un-pulled. There are lots of officially discredited publications, but not in Nature and Science! Remember that it is not so much the output shape that is wonky, it is the method that was used to create it: selectively looking for hockey sticks and then messing up the stats methods. It is surely one of the curiousities of modern science that such an artifice, so boldy exposed against all odds, still stinks up our climate discussion platforms because it remains, extant on the books, so to speak. For the artificer to defence his artifice is not unexpected; disqualifying it is the job of the referees, literally. Nature, do your duty!

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 8, 2011 10:59 am

Using brick for an outhouse has a major problem, it’s hard to mount the Sears Catalog dispenser.

June 8, 2011 11:04 am

…‘Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’ as Bradley put it.
To give full credit to Dr. Bradley, that is a brilliant analogy for science which works already and does not need any improvements, re-examination, or questions.

June 8, 2011 11:06 am

This is an old tale, but I think that it fits.

In the beginning was the Plan.
And then came the Assumptions.
And the Assumptions were without form.
And the Plan was without substance.
And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, “It is a crock of shit, and it stinks.”
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, “It is a pail of dung, and we can’t live with the smell.”
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying “It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it.”
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying “It is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide its strength.”
And the Directors spoke among themselves, saying to one another, “It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong.”
And the Directores went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, “It promotes growth, and it is very powerful.”
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, “This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with powerful effects.”
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
And that is how shit happens.

Mac the Knife
June 8, 2011 11:22 am

An outhouse is an appropriate metaphor…. and repository for the flatulently peer reviewed anal-ysis that employed ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ to ‘Hide the Decline’. Just remember to throw a little slaked lime down the hole…. to cover the ‘robust science’ adequately.

Dave Wendt
June 8, 2011 12:27 pm

A bit OT but in the spirit of the thread, in response to Richard Glover’s column in the Sidney Morning Herald suggesting that climate skeptics be forced to have their opinions tattooed on their bodies so they can be recognized when the climate Armageddon hits in the future, JunkScience.com is holding a contest.
“Sydney Morning Herald columnist Richard Glover appallingly suggested that climate ‘deniers” be forcibly tattooed for purposes of future shaming.
While the chilling totalitarian mindset of this barely tongue-in-cheek commentary speaks for itself, we at JunkScience.com like to think of our status as climate change skeptics as a principled stand against shoddy science, public policy hysteria and unnecessary economy-killing regulation.
In that spirit, we’re proud to announce this opportunity for fellow skeptics to win $500 by entering the Climate Change Denier Tattoo Sweepstakes.”

June 8, 2011 12:32 pm

Yeah, the hockeystick is “built like a brick $$$hithouse” – we are forced to pay as a result of Bradley’s b.s.inside. Man, I haven’t heard that term in 50 years, and, among us guys, it was meant as a complement to a woman!.

Adam Gallon
June 8, 2011 12:35 pm

It’s unbelievable, like a vampire rising from its grave. What does it take to kill this monstrosity?

June 8, 2011 12:36 pm

Excellent subliminal choice of structure “brick outhouse”.
Exactly the sort of structure you need when designing a container for waste hypotheses.
You wouldn’t want the big bad Ice Age wolf blowing your outhouse down.

June 8, 2011 1:12 pm

But of course! What could be better to house the very bowels of the CAGW “movement”, than a “brick s-house”? All credit to you, Dr. Bradley!

June 8, 2011 1:17 pm

You would have thought he could come up with a more sturdy analogy – like a Brick Castle or something not filled with the waste of humans.

June 8, 2011 1:38 pm

“Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’
Hmmm… outhouse…
Poo in, poo out.
Yeah, that part of the analogy works!

June 8, 2011 1:44 pm

This is John Clarke and Bryan Dawe’s take on Global Warming
(The Repairman)
(SCENE: Front door of BRYAN’s home. Door bell rings. BRYAN answers door. It is JOHN.)
John: G’day. I’m here about the climate.
Bryan: What climate?
John: Your climate. Our climate. THE climate. I’m here to fix it.
Bryan: What’s wrong with it?
John: It’s buggered. Absolutely buggered.
Bryan: No it isn’t. I was using it this morning.
John: What for?
Bryan: For drying the washing out the back.
John: Spoken like a true layperson! What you have just witnessed was not the working of an healthy climate, but a clear manifestation of catastrophic global warming! Scientists warn that if current trends continue, solar drying of your clothing will cause it to be not only dried, but pressed and lightly toasted as well!
Bryan: You know what?
John: What?
Bryan: I don’t believe you.
John: You have to believe me!
Bryan: Why?
John: The IPCC, the climate science, the models…
Bryan: What about the models?
John: They’re excellent models. Very robust.
Bryan: What makes you say that?
John: They all reach the same conclusion – they agree with each other.
Bryan: They don’t happen to use the same input numbers, perchance?
John: There is a level of collaborative effort, yes.
Bryan: And they all use atmospheric CO2 level as a major input?
John: Of course.
Bryan: Why’s that?
John: Because atmospheric CO2 level is a significant driver of global climate.
Bryan: So what do all of these “robust” models conclude?
John: That atmospheric CO2 level is a significant driver of global climate.
Bryan: Funny that. You know what?
John: What?
Bryan: I don’t believe you.
John: But the climate record! The long term climate record!
Bryan: Which goes back how far?
John: As early as 1850 – the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Bryan: Even though global temperatures have gone down, as well as up, during that period?
John: The downward cycles were simply the earth’s natural variation.
Bryan: But the upward cycles are global warming?
John: Absolutely.
Bryan: No chance that the upward cycles aren’t natural variation as well?
John: Of course not! They wouldn’t be man-made then, would they? And anyway, the trend for the last 150 years clearly shows a long term warming trend, interspersed by some decades of cooling.
Bryan: Sort of expected, really.
John: Che?
Bryan: Sort of expected. If you’re coming out of a little ice age, then you expect things to be warming up. Otherwise you’d still be in the little ice age, wouldn’t you?
John: I think you’ll find that the little ice age (LIA) did not, in fact, occur. Plus, it was only a localised event of a strictly transient nature. The peer-reviewed literature clearly demonstrates a stable global climate up to the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Bryan: You mean the hockey stick? Don’t make me laugh!
John: This is no laughing matter, my good man. The peer-reviewed literature clearly shows that temperature was benign and stable until the intervention of mankind.
Bryan: You mean YOUR peer review literature? As reviewed by people who are paid to agree with it? As discussed in the Climategate© emails? As distinct from the geological, sociological, archeological, oceanographic and historical evidence to the contrary?
John: That comment was not very helpful.
Bryan: Suit yourself, but I still don’t believe you.
John: What about the rising sea levels? You can’t deny the rising sea levels. Scientists believe that sea levels around the globe are rising due to the effect of the melting ice caps.
Bryan: Of course. And they’ve been rising for about 8000 years – just after the end of the last major ice age. Haven’t noticed anyone taking a walk from Russia to Alaska lately, have you?
John: The Barents Sea would be a bit of a problem, no.
Bryan: That’s because rising sea levels covered the land bridge a few thousand years ago. Well before SUV’s became fashionable, you’d agree? Looks like natural variation to me.
John: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Bryan: You’re a loony!
John: No, I’m a Climate Scientist. And if you don’t believe me, just look at all the catastrophic climate events over the last 20 years. The droughts. The heat waves. The glaciers. The snowstorms. The floods. Can’t you believe your own eyes?
Bryan: So global warming causes droughts? AND floods? Heatwaves AND snowstorms?
John: The floods and snowstorms were only weather events, of course.
Bryan: Just like the decline or plateauing of the global temperatures these last 10-15 years, I suppose?
John: You are being very unreasonable – I can see this conversation is not going to take us anywhere. The science is settled, the debate is over. I think it better if I left now, without fixing your climate.
Bryan: OK, but before you go I’ll just give you a demonstration of the Carbon Tax.
John: Jolly decent of you.
Bryan: Care to show me your wallet?
John: Sure. [Pulls out wallet from pocket.]
Bryan: Now, I’d like you to open your wallet, close your eyes and think nice thoughts about Gaia.
John: OK. [JOHN holds out wallet, smiling blissfully. BRYAN helps himself to the cash.]
Bryan: Thank you for saving the planet. [Shuts door.] And I still don’t believe you

June 8, 2011 2:17 pm

This has got to be a joke. But it seems to be real.

John Crane
June 8, 2011 2:30 pm

After looking at the full resolution of the photo that accompanies the article, I find it ironic that (not unlike Bradleys crapper) it would appear that only three thin wires are all that keeps it from going over the cliff. Robust indeed.

June 8, 2011 2:31 pm

JPeden is right–the term “brick outhouse” has always been applied to a shapely woman, as in: “Whoa, she’s built like a brick sh!thouse”. But therein lies the discrepancy: No bricklayer would force such a woman’s shape on a vertical brick wall, let alone an entire structure–rather by doing so the whole is rendered completely unstable; indeed, unless forced into such a torturous, unnatural shape, it would never stand in the first place.
Hence I submit Dr. Bradley’s subliminal utilization of the symbol is completely appropriate for the bent mnemonic worshiped incessantly by a gaggle of climate chauvinists.

Jimmy Haigh
June 8, 2011 3:23 pm

Josh will have fun with this one. I picture a climate ‘scientist’ sitting straining to pass a robust hockey stick shaped motion…

June 8, 2011 3:32 pm

I’m sure Freud would have had some thoughts…

Michael Jankowski
June 8, 2011 3:38 pm

“The reliability of his findings has been confirmed by more than a decade of testing and scrutiny by the field.”
Seems to me there hasn’t been any “testing” (who exactly has bringing the proxies up to date?).

June 8, 2011 4:19 pm

I simply can’t see how Bradley could believe that his work in MBH98 is defensible. These people seem to be on another planet playing by different rules.

PPH Services
June 8, 2011 6:18 pm

Cute quote…but an outhouse?

Steven Hill
June 8, 2011 6:41 pm

take out the garbage and the trash and man made global warming will be in there

Richard Graves
June 8, 2011 6:55 pm

Hey RockyRoad: Built like a brick shitehouse refered to over robust women, thnk Russian shot putters, not shapely ones in my usage.

June 8, 2011 7:49 pm

The whole problem is that the “hokey schtick” is built, to exacting specifications. Not derived from actual data.

Dave Wendt
June 8, 2011 8:10 pm

Regarding what the reference means regarding feminine pulchritude let’s consult the archives

June 8, 2011 8:58 pm

Richard Graves says:
June 8, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Hey RockyRoad: Built like a brick shitehouse refered to over robust women, thnk Russian shot putters, not shapely ones in my usage.

It could very well have different regional connotations. Where I’m from (Western US), it generally refers to attractive women.

Richard Graves
June 8, 2011 9:12 pm

Re Dave Wendt lets consult the archives
When said of women, one 1938 source notes, the phrase usually meant a “heavy, cloddish, sexually unappetizing female.” But even in the 1930s a few wiseguys were applying it to attractive women, and in the U.S. that usage has now supplanted all others. from http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2458/how-did-the-phrase-built-like-a-brick-shithouse-get-to-be-a-compliment My age is showing vintage 1936. Different ages different meanings!

Brian H
June 8, 2011 9:22 pm

Evidently his ability to construct metaphors is about the same as his ability to do or comprehend science. Pretty sh**y.

June 8, 2011 11:52 pm

Ross. June 8 @1-44pm
Not sure the ABC’s John Clarke and Bryan Dawe would be too happy with you. It’s actually one from a great series
“If the ABC were relevant” by Speedy, a Jo Nova poster .

Pete H
June 9, 2011 12:07 am

Dr. Bradley really should read A.W. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Montford explains the H.S. problems in a form that even Bradley should be able to comprehend!

June 9, 2011 2:21 am

Some quotes are very strange. Perhaps this one should’ve just been flushed.

June 9, 2011 5:42 am

Jimmy Haigh says:
June 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Haha – very good! My take on it was similar, but there would be someone else holding the hockey stick trying to extract the ‘data’!

William McQuiddy
June 9, 2011 7:01 am

Its an insult to out-houses which serve a useful purpose. One had to watch our for wasps while reading the remaining pages of the Sears & Robuck catalog.

Dr. Killpatient
June 9, 2011 7:11 am

This is an explosive revelation…

chris b
June 9, 2011 11:18 am

I didn’t know Bradley could sing!

It's always Marcia, Marcia
June 9, 2011 6:07 pm

%d bloggers like this: