The Reasonable Investigation of the Pragmatism and Sophistication I Lack

The other day I wrote,

“This is a long conversation that I’m not terribly interested in having right now. Suffice it to say that a clear reading of the Bible is more useful, shorter, and deeper than some ancient nerd’s meandering attempt to justify the living Christ to dead Greeks.”

This terribly offended Novaseeker’s sensibilities, and he went around to at least three blogs of which I am aware, and made sure the people he respects knew what scurrilous things I had said about Aquinas. Fearing that the implications of my sin might be too subtle for gentlefolk, he made plain for them that I am “a buffoon”, “anti-intellectual”, and to be ignored post-haste before too much damage is done.

People did not imagine Thomas Aquinas was a nerd? I don’t think there is anything controversial about that characterization. Even if it’s wrong, surely it is well within the bounds of imagination; something on the scale of mistaking a New Zealand accent for Australian. That sort of error might be ruffling to a Kiwi, but only because he’s sentimental about New Zealand–as a Kiwi ought to be. However; I think a nerd chauvinism is counter-productive to the cause.

I propose that: If any philosophy or practice has attracting women as a goal, part of that philosophy or practice ought to be avoiding sentimentality for nerdiness; whether or not nerdiness itself can, should, or will be avoided.

Because on the rest of the statement there can be no disagreement if we are Christians and we believe the Bible to be true. The Bible is the foundation; not Aristotle. We do not believe the Bible because it agrees with Aristotle. Aquinas’s intent was not to supplant the Bible, but to expand out from it. In the same way, it’s better for everyone to read the Bible than to simply accept my interpretation and move on. I am going to miss things; things that are in and under and around and brought to the very text I might be talking about at the moment.

The applicability of Aristotle’s methods of reasoning may be corroborating evidence that is useful for evangelizing lovers of Greek philosophy, but to the great mass of us it is not terribly useful. The guy who runs a dry cleaner simply has very little use for Aquinas; to say nothing of the dry cleaner’s wife, or the shopboy that works for him. That’s who I write to: The Christian Everyman. It takes no imagination for me to believe Pope Francis would agree with me.

This, though, is my favorite of Novaseeker’s decade of derision:

And now our Aquinas bashing moron Cane is attacking me (he’s right, I always saw him as a dangerous moron, but only recently has he opened the kimono fully on his moron nature). Anti-reason, Anti-Greek, Anti-Eros, Anti-Aquinas — I mean, anti anything intellectual other than “art which involves no system”, which of course is not how actual writers and artists proceed — they all have a system. Anyway, beware this crackpot as well. He is an emblem of what is wrong, and Zippy’s easy association with such a crackpot is condemnation in itself.

By “attacking”, you can see he means, “Cane understood my string of criticisms against him”; showing once again an oversensitivity to utterly uncontroversial remarks.

I propose that: If any philosophy or practice has confidence as a goal, part of that philosophy or practice ought to be avoiding knicker-twist for mundane expressions of understanding; lest its adherents be undone by “thank you”, or “I see what you mean.”

Most of the rest of the comment begins understandably enough: He implies that he does not agree with me about several things. But note the italicized portion that not directly about me. “Zippy’s easy association with such a crackpot is condemnation in itself.”

Has it not been maintained and endlessly repeated by Novaseeker that the reasoning of “guilty by association” is no way for Zippy, myself, or anyone else to judge the truth or utility of a concept; such guilty associations being precisely the foundation of my cautions against pagan philosophies and religions? Yet is it not also the case that it is associated guilt which Novaseeker himself is (reasonably!) wielding against the idea of guilt by association?

That’s the problem with faith in the reason of man. Men aren’t reasonable, and even when they are, man’s reasoning can be broken upon itself.

In that same thread, Nick B. Steves wonders:

“I cannot imagine Zippy being too happy about Aquinas bashing?”

Zippy can answer for himself about his emotional state, but the important thing to remember is this: Who cares? What Zippy finds noteworthy about me is that we end up in the same vicinity of truth. Do you know who else is likely to end up in our vicinity? Someone like Roissy or Roosh, because they are willing to sacrifice everything to get to the truth. Each Dido[1] utterly committed to their first love.[2]

Novaseeker, I think, will not; at least not now. He is pragmatic and sophisticated, and those love ease and comfort above all, because–by definition–pragmatic and sophisticated people aren’t looking for the truth, but tools for easy living. That goes for most of the denizens of the Men’s Sphere.

I got nothing for those people. I truly don’t. This is fundamentally different than the poor man who needs some help getting by. The man waylaid in the road doesn’t need tools; he needs a friend who will pick him up, tend his wounds, and pay his way. For him I have a few meager answers that I will share along my way.

Finally, a word to Novaseeker on being moderated by Zippy: Hey man, I been there.

[1] I did not say one cannot see truths in Athens. I said it is infinitely better to know Jerusalem. So much so that by comparison Athens is practically irrelevant, and very often misleading; that one cannot properly even see Athens until one has been to Jerusalem.

[2]It remains that there is only one King, one Truth, with power over life and death Who has gone before us.

About these ads

28 Responses to The Reasonable Investigation of the Pragmatism and Sophistication I Lack

  1. Chad says:

    The whole thing is hilarious and humbling. Seeing men say that a love of God must mean a hate of all else is ridiculous. A love of God informs the love of all else to the degree it is in alignment with God. If you don’t know God, how can you determine that? You can’t. You’re guessing, sinking costs into actions, thoughts, beliefs, people, world views, etc that you may have to later go back and change. Doing so is painfully difficult, painfully humbling, and simply outright painful.

    Yet us men do it all the time. I grapple with my thoughts and beliefs every post I write on the new blog, because I have to admit how much my own behavior does not meet what God desires of us.

    Warning these people almost seems pointless at times. On the four guys thread I saw someone try to mock me by saying ‘can you imagine a blog about godly masculinity as related to the stock market!? Lolololz!’

    To which I can only say that if you don’t think a virtuous life following God’s will applies to all things, there’s very little you’ll gain from reading the any of the Christian blogs on masculine behavior. We might not be able to tell you how to do everything in life successfully, but we are trying to learn and teach you how to do everything in life as a man; specifically as a man of God and pleasing to him.

    To which they shut their ears. I only continue out of hope someone lurking will find wisdom. Heck, or that I’ll find wisdom just in the attempt. Lord knows I need more of it

  2. Elspeth says:

    I grapple with my thoughts and beliefs every post I write on the new blog, because I have to admit how much my own behavior does not meet what God desires of us.

    I feel the same way.

    I already *liked* this CC, but since I’ve bothered to comment, I’ll add more and say that your determined refusal to express a pragmatic, fractured approach to a whole life is admirable.

  3. “The Bible is the foundation; not Aristotle. We do not believe the Bible because it agrees with Aristotle. Aquinas’s intent was not to supplant the Bible, but to expand out from it. In the same way, it’s better for everyone to read the Bible than to simply accept my interpretation and move on.”

    2 Timothy 3:16

    “Novaseeker, I think, will not; at least not now. He is pragmatic and sophisticated, and those love ease and comfort above all, because–by definition–pragmatic and sophisticated people aren’t looking for the truth, but tools for easy living. That goes for most of the denizens of the Men’s Sphere.”

    2 Timothy 3:5
    Revelation 3:17-18

    This was on point.

  4. Bobbye says:

    Aquinas Rules!
    Take heart! Here are five proofs for the existence of Santa Claus (with apologies to Saint Thomas Aquinas). Again, this is a bit philosophical, but Santa is worth every bit of intellectual energy we can muster.
    “We proceed thus to the next article of discussion. It seems that Santa Claus does not exist.
    Objection 1: Presents may be given by the good elves, and so there is no need for Santa Claus.
    Objection 2: If Santa Claus existed, there would be no chimneys too narrow for him. But there are chimneys to narrow for him, and sometimes none at all. Therefore Santa Claus does not exist.
    On the contrary, Kay Starr says, “I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus.”
    I answer that the existence of Santa Claus can be proved in five ways:
    The first and most evident way is the argument from Christmas trees. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things in this world are Christmas trees. Now no fir tree becomes a Christmas tree unless it is trimmed. But to be trimmed means that one receives an ornament. And since one cannot go on to infinity in the passing on of Christmas tree ornaments, there must be a First Untrimmed Trimmer, and this everyone understands to be Santa Claus.
    The second way is from the notion of Christmas presents. In this world we find the giving of Christmas presents. Now he who gives Christmas presents either made them in his workshop, or got them from someone else. And since, if no one makes presents in his workshop, there will be no giving of Christmas presents, there must be a first giver of Christmas presents, to whom everyone gives the name of Santa Claus.
    The third way is from the plastic image of Santa Claus. In all department stores we see plastic images that represent Santa Claus. Now these are representations of Santa Claus either because of Santa himself, or because of some other image of Santa. Now there can be no infinite regression in representation, and so there must be something which is like Santa Claus because it _is_ Santa Claus.
    The fourth way is taken from the degrees of Christmas Spirit. We see that people in the world have more or less of the Christmas Spirit. But “more” or”less” is said only with reference to “most”; and so there must be someone who has the most Christmas Spirit, and this someone we call Santa Claus.
    The fifth way is taken from the conduct of children. As Christmas approaches we see children, who lack intelligence, acting for an end, which is shown by their always (or almost always) being good. But children would not be good for Christmas unless someone ensured that they were good. This someone is known by all to be Santa Claus.
    Reply to Objection 1: Since the good elves got the presents they give from someone else, they must be, at the very most, Santa’s helpers; and without someone to help, viz., Santa Claus, there can be no helpers.
    Reply to Objection 2: It is not impossible that Santa use the door like everyone else.”
    Also this when I am tempted:http://www.academia.edu/826623/Why_cant_angels_think_properly

  5. If any philosophy or practice has attracting women as a goal, part of that philosophy or practice ought to be avoiding sentimentality for nerdiness; whether or not nerdiness itself can, should, or will be avoided.

    We are almost all (in this sphere for sure) guilty of sentimentality for nerdiness, inclusing you sir Cane. Mine is a weakness for technical, mathematical, chemistry or physics things. Yours is less straightforward but manifests as rarely accepting anyone’s hypothesis or assertion as is and more, then going in a direction certain to confuse some, rattle others, and many times actually to strike some gold. the outcome doesnt change the fact that its the same sentimentality for nerdiness.

    even while I do it, I complain that others do it, which may be a part of doing it…..who knows. I get sideways about all the dust that clutters certain topics when the dust is directly off the covers of old books, GBFM so to speak.

    Not to patronize, but somehow Dalrock manages to not do this thing. Its one of many reasons his blog is so readable. I know he doesnt do it because i carry a boulder on my shoulder
    (feelin’ kinda older, I tripped the merry-go-round) about it.

  6. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    We are almost all (in this sphere for sure) guilty of sentimentality for nerdiness, inclusing you sir Cane.

    I have an affection for nerds and nerdiness, but very little sentimentality. Sentimentality is a stunted form of affection; an affection that wants the object to remain as the sentimentalist prefers.

    What I’m not guilty of is having a philosophy which holds physical attraction of women as a goal.

  7. I have an affection for nerds and nerdiness, but very little sentimentality. Sentimentality is a stunted form of affection; an affection that wants the object to remain as the sentimentalist prefers.

    Here you do what I say when I mention:

    rarely accepting anyone’s hypothesis or assertion as is and more, then going in a direction certain to confuse some, rattle others, and many times actually to strike some gold

    Ok, affection vs sentimentality, point taken.

    I didn’t suggest it had a wit to do with attracting women. I doubt it does. This time anyway.

  8. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    Here you do what I say when I mention [you] rarely accepting anyone’s hypothesis or assertion as is and more, then going in a direction certain to confuse some, rattle others, and many times actually to strike some gold

    Yes, that’s the part I was accepting as an accurate description of my affection.

    I didn’t suggest it had a wit to do with attracting women. I doubt it does. This time anyway.

    But what you quoted of me to flip was predicated on that: “If any philosophy or practice has attracting women as a goal…”

    I have strong nerd credentials, but I’m not precious about them. That’s why others–like you–have to suss them out. :)

  9. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    Not to patronize, but somehow Dalrock manages to not do this thing.

    No, that’s an excellent point, and Dalrock is very good about this. He’s a better blogger than I am in every way that I can think of. If anyone only has time for one blog, then that person should delete their bookmark here and spend it at Dalrock’s.

    On the other hand: I’m not Dalrock, and we don’t have the same…concerns. “Goals” is probably too strong a word to describe how I decide what to write.

    In addition, I probably do not write to my strengths. Logical exposition is not my strength; partially because no one I know actually cares about it, and partially because I don’t think it’s actually what anyone relies on when they have a painful decision to make.

  10. Bobbye: What exactly was the point of that weird, long, and meandering post?

    If you want to somehow equate that freakish thing you posted to the Five Ways you’ll have to establish, you know, how it equates. Otherwise you’re just lamely attempting to mimic the basic structure Aquinas used in the Summa.

    Cane: I consider myself a big Aquinas fan. I’m confused – what exactly was your objection to him?

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    Cane: I consider myself a big Aquinas fan. I’m confused – what exactly was your objection to him?

    Specifically…that’s a very long explanation, and mostly unnecessary.

    Generally, it is the same problem I have with watching the NFL.

    A little more specifically: Whatever it is that people find themselves fans of, they think should be exempt from criticism; from thoughtful consideration through testing.

    To tie this back to the nerd thing: I don’t recall a single person here mounting a defense of the NFL; nevermind the fact that St. Paul himself repeatedly compares the practice of Christianity to sports and gladiators. My point that undue worship was being paid to unworthy sources was simply accepted because there is an intellectual/nerd/INTJ prejudice against sports.

    Not that it needed being done, but when I call Aquinas a nerd, or refer to nerdiness at all, some people here discover an offense they can’t get over.

    As Empath noted:

    “Here you [Cane] do what I say when I mention [you] rarely accepting anyone’s hypothesis or assertion as is and more, then going in a direction certain to confuse some, rattle others, and many times actually to strike some gold”

    I certainly do mean to provoke.

  12. Bobbye says:

    @MtC: That weird, long, and meandering post was an attempt at what is sometimes called humor. And yes, I understand that Aquinas fans, as well as most nerds don’t have a sense of it. As I write this I am watching the Wisc. vs Mich college basketball game and enjoying it. Although I will not defend sports, I am convinced sports will be played in Heaven and on the new Earth, just without sin.

  13. Aquinas fans, lets discuss the recent draft? Its been awhile and those are big shoes to fill. On ESPN they have added a babe to the team, now we have a monosyllabic ex playah, er, player, and the coiffed news caster to has perfected juuuuust when to rise up on the toes with inflection. they have some candidates in mind.
    By listening to some of the folksy guests on ESPN I think they would cast Tim Tebow, after all he is the most wise playah….player to hit the gridiron in years. One word…..courage….

    (I do not watch ESPN except while waiting for flights I am forced to sit amidst a batch of men with business degrees and years of sports stats stored in their heads, and an uncanny ability to say the expression EBIT-DAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH, as they linger to the point of missing the flight to her one more piece of conjecture about who or which team is the greatest at defending against the pass)

  14. Bobbye says:

    Empath, was that a try at humor? Pretty good for a first timer.

  15. That weird, long, and meandering post was an attempt at what is sometimes called humor. And yes, I understand that Aquinas fans, as well as most nerds don’t have a sense of it.

    Well, most of the time when I see things like that it’s a lame attempt by atheists to try and prove that you can use Aquinas’s proofs to justify things like the cosmic teapot, so sorry that I misread you.

  16. Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    Well, most of the time when I see things like that it’s a lame attempt by atheists to try and prove that you can use Aquinas’s proofs to justify things like the cosmic teapot

    We are Christians. We do not believe in reason even if we sometimes believe through reason. The important thing to do with Christ is believe in Him. The problem is: You can reason arguments for a cosmic teapot–or rather–cannot reason against the cosmic teapot. That doesn’t make Aquinas or Aristotle worthless; but rather incidental. The moment I pick-up that someone has let the incidental lead them away from the main plot of believing in Christ, I smash that idol.

  17. You can reason arguments for a cosmic teapot–or rather–cannot reason against the cosmic teapot.

    Well Cane, I just disagree. The Five Ways on their own all add up to help us understand certain qualities about God, and the rest of the Summa is full of the qualities of God and how to reason to them – hardly the cosmic teapot.

  18. Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    Well Cane, I just disagree.

    I understand that what I’m saying is an attack on some of your basic assumptions about what you think you know. I also understand that my attack is far from perfect because it is based on what I think I know, and expressed according to those same things. Consequently, impatience would be foolish.

    The important thing for us to do while he hash this out is keep at the center Christ; whose life was prophesied and could even have been reasoned. Hindsight deduction can lead us to see that Christ could not have lived and died and lived again in any other way except as exactly as He did, and yet still be the Christ.

    A rich Christ, for example, would have led straight-away to a prosperity Gospel, and no way to refute it; no way to comfort the less than prosperous. A conquering warrior Christ would have nullified free will; made us nothing but slaves when He desires brothers and friends in communion. If Christ had never died… Queue King Mongkut.

    But that is hindsight. Christ’s path was never guessed even though it could only have been one and only one way. We could not make seen what God had hid. And when He walked the only possible path, we rejected it.

    The Five Ways on their own all add up to help us understand certain qualities about God, and the rest of the Summa is full of the qualities of God and how to reason to them – hardly the cosmic teapot.

    What is good about Aquinas was revealed to Him. His starting assumptions are not purely logical. The criticisms that Aquinas argues from authority are totally right. Furthermore, it was absolutely right of Aquinas to make that “error” of argument.

    Completion of this circle of stupidity happens when Christians debate. It is only the Christians who have some familiarity with Aquinas or Greek philosophy who say things like, NUH-UH! YOU’RE MAKING AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!”

    Well…yes. Happily!

    Serious question: Why do you believe the Bible?

  19. Dalrock says:

    Thank you for the kind words Cane and Empath.

    On the topic of nerdiness, I trust you are already familiar with my favorite Weird Al video:

  20. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Re: White and Nerdy

    Haha!

    As response, I offer White and Nerdy’s ancestor, and my favorite Offspring song:

  21. Dalrock says:

    Good video. I knew the song but had never seen the video. It reminds me of one of the few things I miss from LA: Tommyburgers.

  22. I am Catholic, so I believe in the Bible because I think that the historical record backs up the Church’s claim that she is the Church founded by Christ, and thus has the authority to declare what books belong in the Biblical canon.

    I’d probably still be a Christian where I not Catholic. My reasoning as a Protestant would simply be that I think that the Gospels represent an accurate depiction of events of things that occurred when Jesus was live. I don’t think I’d believe in anything like Biblical inerrancy, though. Why would I?

    But that’s going too far abreast. There’s my answer.

  23. Also – I hope I don’t come off as frustrated or angry. I’m very much not. I genuinely am interested to see where this is going.

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    Sorry, meant to respond to you sooner. Let’s judge another group of which we are outside.

    Suppose we asked a Muslim: “Why do you believe the Koran?” He might answer: “I am Muslim, so I believe in the Koran because I think that the historical record backs up Islam’s claim that she is the Islam founded by Mohammed, and thus has the authority to declare what books belong in the Koran.”

    That is a true answer (as best I know), but I wouldn’t consider it evidence that I too should accept the authority of the Koran and Islam; not like we think Muslims should accept the authority of the Bible and the Church.

    The faith we have is not a blind faith. Christianity is falsifiable. If Christ’s remains were to be found tomorrow: Then the jig would be up. This is important to consider, because we haven’t found it. Our enemies haven’t found it. In fact, as far as I know, every archeological dig either corroborates the histories found in the Bible, or they have nothing to say about them. There are a lot of dates and names in the Bible. Shouldn’t they have found something?

    Along these same lines: The New Testament is remarkable in that it has survived the way it has. We are told that the Bible has been changed and edited to make it of-a-piece; that it has been carefully cobbled together to appear to be coherent. How likely is it that the followers of Peter kept Paul’s rebuke of Peter as scripture? How likely is it that events in different books, of the same event, are described differently? Any group writing one Gospel would have written one definitive version that looked something like the US Constitution. “We here agree and attest to these things. Yours Truly, Peter, James, Paul…”

    Some of the manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts from which we translate the Bible date from the time of the those of whom would have had a memory of Christ; Who–not incidentally–was seen by hundreds of people after His resurrection, and would have been able to testify or disprove the claims.

    Again in this same vein, Paul is there at the martyring of Stephen; watching the clothes of those stoning Stephen. He is struck blind on the road to Damascus, taken to a Christian’s home, and there He is healed. For three years after (if I recall the timeline correctly) he wanders around seeing revelations. Then he comes back to Jerusalem, and presents himself to Peter, James, and the rest for inspection and testing. Paul is found to be, by these revelations, in possession of the truth they themselves knew and Paul could not have known naturally. One week on the Internet ought to be enough to disprove the ability of men to come to such utterly copacetic terms; when knowledge of those terms means sharing power. That’s why we suspect Islam: The visions only occurred to Mohammed. All the power was vested in him. That’s a profoundly human way to take power; not a divine one.

    One final note: It is said that history is written by the winners, and this makes the case of the history of Jews–the Bible–unique. They are losers, and yet their history is the greatest history and story ever told. There is a preponderance of evidence for the faithful translation of that history. It is also the best piece of art ever created; so true feeling, and wide-ranging across the whole spectrum of human experience.

    You can find books by Americans about how bad are Americans. You can find books by the English about how English mistakes are going to be the downfall of England. You can find German books about how it was all a misunderstanding. You can find French books about how when you really think about it, the French way is the right way. The Bible is unique in that it is the one history of a people–by that people–that is both brutally honest about the faults of the people, and yet still believes in their salvation through it, and through those people, and even through those faults.

    There’s another good take here; which I’ve cribbed from somewhat; happily.

  25. Well, hold on. You asked why I believe, specifically, in the BIBLE, which I took to mean the Bible as we know it, not why I was a Christian. I 110% agree with everything you wrote (and will try and find time to listen to that video). In fact I’ve made many of those same points myself in arguments, and I remember your point about the Bible being written from the perspective of the losers actually being mentioned in one of my high school Theology textbooks. I am a Christian simply because I believe the historical record backs up the claims Christians make. And yes, the main source I have for that historical record would be the New Testament.

    BUT – if I didn’t believe the historical record backed up the Catholic Church’s claim of legitimacy, I almost certainly would not believe in Biblical inerrancy, nor would my idea of canon be as set in stone as it is now. Why would it be?

    If I were to try and convince Muslims why they should convert I would probably start by going through the Biblical prophecies that came to fulfillment in the New Testament – for me that’s one of the biggest things Christianity has going for it. I would also point out how the timeline and record of events in the New Testament matches up extraordinarily well to other sources we have of the events, and I would point out that if the 12 apostles were lying or unsure about Jesus’s Resurrection it is doubtful they would decide to die in such horrifically gruesome ways. I’d probably direct the Muslim to “Mere Christianity” at this point.

    Aquinas doesn’t even come into it, because Muslims already believe in God. They even believe in the God of Abraham.

  26. Desiderius says:

    “People did not imagine Thomas Aquinas was a nerd?”

    No, he was not. For one thing, he was a giant physically, and not a gentle one.

    More than a conqueror, not less.

    Again, tearing down heroes past and present does not in the end help us in our present mediocrity. The knee-jerk reflex to do so is part of the modern malady.

  27. Desiderius says:

    “Thomas was described by a contemporary as ‘tall, erect, large and well-built, with a complexion like ripe wheat and whose head early grew bald’.”

    Early baldness correlates with high T. Nerdiness not so much. Try again.

  28. Bobbye says:

    @malcolmthecynic: “Aquinas doesn’t even come into it, because Muslims already believe in God. They even believe in the God of Abraham”
    Jesus Christ IS God. Do you really believe Allah and Jesus are the same Person?

    @Desiderius : “Again, tearing down heroes past and present does not in the end help us in our present mediocrity”
    That which you label a ‘hero’ is in fact an ‘authority’ which competes with the Holy Spirit and Scripture for the allegiance of the believer. It is exactly such ‘sacred cows’ that need to be challenged in bringing the ecklesia back to Jesus Christ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 117 other followers

%d bloggers like this: