Witchhunt Part Deux?

Well, the Darwinists are certainly up in a tizzy over Chris Comer resigning from her position as the director of science curriculum of Texas.  Yes, she resigned; she wasn’t fired as some Darwinists are claiming.  That’s not all they are claiming either.  Apparently, the Darwinists are convinced that she was “fired” because she dared to believe in evolution and her superiors are all dyed-in-the-wool creationists that are secretly plotting to take over the world.  I wonder if there’s any evidence for this.  Let’s take a look, shall we?

Exhibit A

Texas Science Curriculum Director Canned for Mentioning Evolution

That’s the title.  You know it’s going to be bad when there’s two falsehoods in the title alone.  Anyway, the evidence?

Huh, there isn’t any.  Oh well, let’s try the next one.

Exhibit B

Here’s how much officials at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) hate evolution: They hate it so much that TEA staff members can now be forced out of their jobs merely for telling people about a speech by a noted opponent of “intelligent design” (ID).

So they claim, so where’s the evidence to back up such a claim?

In an effort to cover the agency’s butt, TEA officials drummed up some other reasons that Comer had to be let go. But they all sound picayune — because they are picayune. Let’s be clear about what happened: It is 2007, and the woman was fired because she dared suggest that some people might want to hear a speech backing the teaching of evolution.

More allegations, but no evidence so far.  Well, maybe the next source will have some.  Let’s see.

Exhibit C

But the truth is that Comer, who has decades of experience as a science teacher and had been director of science for the Texas Education Agency for nine years, was shown the door.

Her indiscretion was sending out an e-mail in November that informed readers about a lecture in Austin to be given by a prominent supporter of evolution. In turn, this spurred disciplinary action by TEA officials who accused her of misconduct and, most tellingly, for taking sides against intelligent design.

Again, more allegations, any evidence of those allegations?

(crickets chirping…)

Huh.  So, wait, you mean there’s no evidence what-so-ever of this nefarious plot to destroy evolution in favor of creationism in Texas, yet the Darwinists “know” that Comer was “fired” for believing in evolution?

I think there’s two things going on here.  First, I think the Darwinists are acting out their well-known tendencies to attack anyone or anything they see as a threat to their worldview.  Second, I think the evolutionists are trying to play the “You creationists are just as bad as us” game after the documented evidence of Gonzalez being denied tenure from ISU because of his link to ID science came to light.  The Darwinists are desperate to try to get one back on those that threaten their worldview.

Of course, the most glaring part of this is that the ID advocates have brought evidence to this battle while the Darwinists have not.  It sort of reminds me of the scientific debate where ID advocates are increasingly using evidence and logic while Darwinists are clinging to fallacious thinking, power plays, and a distinct lack of evidence.

Advertisements

22 responses to “Witchhunt Part Deux?

  1. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Here is your evidence. A TEA memo proposes “to terminate the employment of Chris Castillo-Comer due to misconduct and subordination.” The memo was approved by Susan Barnes, associate commissioner for standards and programs. Tom Shindell, director for organizational development, asked Comer to resign or be terminated. Of course she chose to resign, but that wasn’t a voluntary resignation.

  2. professorsmith

    Your link doesn’t seem to work for me.

    Of course, this isn’t evidence of anything really. The fact is that she did resign, she was NOT fired. If she thought she was doing the right thing or that she was being terminated improperly, then she should have held her ground, but she didn’t.

    Also, where is the evidence that she was forced out by some nefarious creationist plot? Answer: you have no evidence of this. Yet you Darwinists are all willing to claim that this is what happened.

    Edit: It seems that Adobe wanted to load some fonts, which allowed the link to work after downloading some files. Your link doesn’t prove what you contend, quite the opposite. It shows that Mrs. Comer was not “fired” because she ‘dared speak out against creationism’.

  3. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    The link works fine for me. If you still can’t open it, try this one (scroll down).

    There is no disputing that she was being terminated: the TEA document shows that the wheels had already been set in motion. Her superior signed off on the recommendation to terminate. She was told in no uncertain terms by another superior to resign or be fired.

    Ideally, Comer should have fought the termination. However, she lives in a real world where she is a divorced woman who has a family to support (see the NYT article). In these circumstances she chose to resign because a fired person would have a much harder time finding a job.

    As to the creationist conspiracy, why else is Comer being punished for forwarding an announcement about Barbara Forrest’s talk? Creationists and IDers are so afraid of Barbara (remember her testimony in Dover? Does cdesign proponentsists ring the bell?) that they overreact as they did in this case.

    Finally, here is a quote from an American Statesman December 6 article:

    “We were actually told in a meeting in September that if creationism is the party line, we have to abide by it,” Comer said, maintaining that her ouster was political and that she felt persecuted for having supported the teaching of evolution in Texas classrooms.

  4. professorsmith

    I was finally able to read it, as my edit points out.

    Yes, she was in the process of being fired, but she was not fired, and none of the articles state that. I can only assume that it’s because they either don’t care about the truth, or they are trying to manipulate the situation. And, I have no doubt that she is smart enough to know that had she been fired, it would have created a stink (it has even though she wasn’t fired) so I’m not too worried about her future job prospects.

    As to your assertion that creationists are scared of Ms. Forrest…is that all you’ve got? Again, you provide no evidence for your position. The only evidence you brought forward actually refutes your position in that there are multiple reasons listed for considering Ms. Comer’s termination. This seems to be a case of cognitive dissonance, but that’s nothing new to materialists.

    Finally, now, all of a sudden, Ms. Comer wants to tell the world about creationist plots when it’s very evident that she’s being pushed that way? Why did she not say anything until now?

  5. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    This passage in the memo is quite unambiguous (emphasis mine):

    When Dr. Jackson asked Ms. Comer about this situation, she replied that she was only forwarding information. However, the forwarding of this event announcement by Ms. Comer, as the Director of Science, from her TEA email account constitutes much more than just sharing information. Ms. Comer’s email implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral. Thus, sending this email compromises the agency’s role in the TEKS revision process by creating the perception that TEA has a biased position on a subject directly related to the science education TEKS.

    So, Comer was being fired specifically for endorsing Barbara Forrest’s position against ID/creationism.

    It’s quite telling that the writer implies that TEA is supposed to be “neutral” vis-a-vis the evolution-creation debate. Since when has that been the TEA policy? Is there a document that stipulates treating creationism on an equal footing with evolution? I don’t think so.

  6. professorsmith

    Nice of you to read your own bias into it, but that’s not what it says or what it necessarily means.

    Ever since the Dover decision, schools are rightly worried about how to handle ID. Even though Jones ruled wrongly, the schools in this situation are now caught between a rock and a hard place. It looks to me like they are trying to take a sensible line by remaining neutral on the questions of religious thoughts that may or may not be held by their students, due to the incorrect ruling. [Note: Since I know that you will misconstrue what I have said I’m going to spell it out for you. I am not saying that ID is religious. The court ruling, however wrong it was, says that it is, so schools have to be careful since ID was elevated to religion and there are policies regarding separation of church and state that they are trying to follow. I don’t blame them for being nervous about it, especially with the way that the Darwinists react whenever their precious dogma is threatened.]

    Also, if the agency must remain neutral, then those are the rules. There are times and places and people hired to debate the science standards and come to a conclusion about what should or should not be included. Nowhere are they saying that Ms. Comer was guilty of speaking against creationism. They are saying that she is guilty of speaking out in an official manner about things that are outside of her job description. You Darwinists are out to lynch people that are simply trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

  7. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    I am afraid your defense does not hold up.

    For one thing, the Dover decision does not apply outside of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, so keep Judge Jones out of the equation. And even if did, Judge Jones agreed with Barbara Forrest that ID is not science. Thus, endorsing her position would not run afoul of the judge’s ruling.

    For another, the charge of insubordination would only be valid if TEA indeed had adopted a neutral stance on the question of evolution vs creation. I don’t think that ever happened. TEKS states unambiguously that students are supposed to learn the theory of evolution:

    (7) Science concepts. The student knows the theory of biological evolution. The student is expected to:
    (A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities, and embryology; and
    (B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior, and extinction.

    There is not a single word, let alone an equal-time requirement, about teaching creation or ID (or critiquing evolution) in the standards. Can you provide any evidence that TEA is supposed to be neutral on evolution vs creation?

  8. professorsmith

    I know the Dover decision isn’t binding, but do you really think that other school districts around the country didn’t note it and keep it in the back of their minds? Of course they are going to be weary of the issue now because of the way the Darwinists have thrust the issue into the spotlight and the way they have handled the issue since, including the latest.

    Further, it is not up to me to disprove that the board was against Ms. Comer due to being a bunch of creationists, but up to you to prove your argument that the board was a bunch of creationists that tossed her out because she believes in evolution. You, sir, have not met your burden of proof. You have only given us conjecture, the same as the articles cited in the OP. What evidence do you have that Ms. Comer’s superiors are all creationists and that they wanted her gone because she believes in evolution? Please answer the question if you want your comments to appear. Otherwise, you are wasting all of our time by presenting hearsay and conspiracy theories that have no evidence.

  9. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Let’s begin with Don McLeroy, chairman of the State Board of Education. He is a well-known YEC who is on the record saying

    Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant.

    McLeroy shows no neutrality on the question of evolution vs creation. On the contrary, in that speech he explicitly endorsed Philip Johnson’s Wedge Strategy:

    In a nutshell, that’s the strategy. So what do we do about our Bible in the intelligent design movement? According to Johnson, the first thing to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion. Remember, even if you don’t bring the Bible into the discussion, the naturalist has already put it into the discussion. And Johnson states “it’s vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice and to keep the discussion strictly on the scientific evidence and the philosophical assumptions. This is not to say that the Biblical issues aren’t important, the point is the time to address them will be after we have separated materialistic prejudice from scientific fact.”

    Shouldn’t he also be fired on the basis of violating the neutrality?

  10. professorsmith

    I hesitated before letting your comment appear, because you have definitely not done what I asked. But, I wanted others to see what materialists will stoop to.

    First off, your first quote is a quote mine. You try to make it appear the McLeroy is talking about the board of education when in reality he is talking about his stance and those of his audience, which happen to be a church. He misrepresents ID, which is common enough from both sides, but that’s not what you are getting at. You are trying to make it seem as though he went after Ms. Comer because he and the other board members are creationists, but you have no evidence to back that up. Once again, I’m left asking where is the evidence?

    You are also taking the Johnson quote out of context, but that’s typical for materialists. Johnson is stressing that the materialists will try to claim that ID is about the Bible and will constantly bring up the Bible. Your comments on this site are proof of that as are the comments of your co-Darwinists. He counsels that we should stick to the science. If only you Darwinists could do the same.

    So, tsk tsk on you.

  11. Pingback: The Real Villains « Professor Smith’s Weblog

  12. Pingback: Yuck « Professor Smith’s Weblog

  13. First off, I’d like to say that I don’t care anymore if Texas or the South / Southwest as a whole teaches evolution or not. I cared when I was younger, and now I’m mature enough to know that it’s different strokes for different folks. Eventually the country may become bifurcated into a scientific / technological side with jobs in those fields, and people that can’t deal with radio carbon dating because it contradicts the bible, sort of like the Taliban but Christian. I do have a Christian friend in Texas and she does hate science and that’s fine with me.

    I heard an interview with this woman. She described in exhaustive detail what happened to her and she struck me as a pliable figure; not everyone has the tenacity to fight when you can’t win, against a Bush appointee. She definitely was being fired.

    Like the Bush appointees at NASA that edited publications by scientists far more qualified than them, the woman that attacked Comer was not a scientist (unless you think political science is a science) and has no education experience.

    Bush, her boss, got D’s and F’s in science. I know because I’ve seen the report card. Now this doesn’t mean they’re stupid. It means they’re unqualified.

    The proof that you say doesn’t exist is in the form of Cormer’s account, the letter that was sent by Lizzette Reynolds, the accounts and records of the board meeting she was in right after the incident, that her computer was locked, HR approached her about the incident, the email itself, and the fact that Texas as a whole has been fighting about this issue for some time. You can quibble about the details but that seems like a concerted effort to get her out.

    So, maybe she should have made them fire her but she didn’t have it in her, I guess. You live longer if you don’t argue, I’d just move to a state more scientifically minded.

    A scientific educator shouldn’t have to be neutral about science anymore than a math teacher needs to be neutral about new ideas in math. Science is very Democratic in the sense that anyone with good evidence can topple an established idea, but it’s undemocratic in the sense that if you can be in the majority opinion and still be dead wrong for lack of convincing evidence, poor logic and experimental methodology and quite often, bias.

    If you pose an advanced calculus problem to a group of kindergarten children, do you think that if they voted on it all together they’d have a better chance of solving the problem? I think not. How undemocratic! Likewise, most of the folks on the ID side are either not scientists, or got their degrees in unrelated fields, and when they apply themselves to the problem they don’t use proper scientific methods.

    Why? Because of extreme religious bias. Faith is a great comfort but it doesn’t allow you to think objectively. If it were left up to religious thinkers to figure out the world we’d still have a geocentric universe, bloodletting for humors etc etc. We’d still be in the middle ages, basically, and not have any of these nifty computers.

    Newton actually wrote more (a million words!) about religion than science, on the other hand…. so there’s that. Nobody remembers him for that, though.

    Scientists aren’t “suppressing” ID or creationism, they’re just pointing out that it’s not science.

    If someone is promoting the idea that the world is flat, and we know from evidence scientifically that it is not, isn’t it her JOB NOT to be neutral, and promote scientific knowledge? Although a good chunk of the religious folks in Texas may despise the idea of evolution, this is currently the curriculum. I’m no lawyer, but I wonder what it is exactly that she did wrong?

  14. The evidence that Chris Comer was being fired does exist, as I pointed out in a post that I guess didn’t meet your moderation criteria, so I’m writing a shorter post.

    A scientifically unqualified Bush appointee sent an email demanding her firing. She was made to email a retraction, she was locked out of her computer and she was approached by her supervisor and HR about the email she forwarded. I admit I don’t know if she was actually fired, but clearly she was about to be, and she seems not the type of person to engage in a protracted political and legal struggle.

  15. Carl,
    That doesn’t constitute evidence. Your attacks on a “Bush appointee” are nothing but ad hominem.

    I admit that I missed your previous post, and all new posters are automatically put in moderation. I’ll have to go back and look for it.

  16. Carl,
    I fished your comment out and posted it for you. Now, I would like to rebut:

    First, you open with an appalling paragraph filled with apathy towards the future of our children and false dichotomies. The next three paragraphs are all one long ad hominem attack and have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

    Your fifth paragraph is very interesting to me because you defeat your own argument with your admission that your only “evidence” is that which I have already debunked. There is no evidence of anything in there, just innuendo. You are jumping to conclusions that simply aren’t there.

    Further, Comer was not asked to be neutral about science as I talked about above. This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Also, no one is proposing turning science into a ballot box, this is simply more strawman argumentation. Further, I don’t think you can prove that ID is due to extreme religious bias, especially because it is simply not true. ID is based on science and data, which you would know if you read any actual ID literature or read my blog more.

    Talking about Newton is non sequitor. Materialists are suppressing ID because they claim it is not science when it clearly is and they attack those who pursue ID like Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc. Finally, for a further discussion on what she might have done wrong, I suggest you actually read the OP and the comments before making uninformed opinions.

  17. Thanks for putting up my post; I appreciated your response very much. I’m sorry if my comments were “appalling”, there are plenty of snarky pejorative statements in your blog, but this is your blog, not mine, and I do respect that. Thank you for your time and for the discussion.

    My point about education is not exactly apathy; it’s more that it’s not productive or profitable to argue about issues of faith and that it’s fine with me if you win your battle. Not everyone in the country or the world has to be on the same page.

    I like that you mention fallacies. This is how I like to see people argue.

    I’m not sure that mentioning Lizzette Reynolds is an Ad Hominum attack, as it is a case of politics rather than logic.

    I didn’t say that Lizzette Reynolds is wrong about any scientific concepts, as I agree you can (logically) be an unqualified, non-elected official and still happen to be PERFECTLY correct.

    What I was responding to was your initial statement that there isn’t a “shred of evidence” for wrongdoing, and that scientist are in a “tizzy” over nothing. In a political situation, the social climate and a person’s prior actions, attitudes and qualifications seem to be relevant as it illuminates motivation and trends. If this were in a court of law, for, say, a wrongful termination or sexual harassment suit (and I am not implying that it should go there, this is an analogy) I believe lawyers would be allowed to bring these things up, and that the fact she was pushed out before actually being fired would also not be the end-all or be-all of the case. I can get in a tizzy without her being fired if I think it’s wrong how she was treated.

    I bring up Bush and his appointees because they have a long history of interfering with free communication in many fields of science, not just biology or evolution, and in most of the cases the people that are editing scientific reports are completely unqualified to make these judgments, and are merely politically motivated. This is bad for science and part of what’s causing the “tizzy”.

    I agreed with you in my post that she wasn’t fired.

    As for the strawman argument, your original post is one big strawman argument because you complain that “there’s no evidence what-so-ever” in the article you cherry picked to have no facts. Before I reached your blog I heard interviews and read about 5 much more factual and informative articles.

    My comment about Newton, if you read it, is not a “non sequitur”, it’s an admission that my previous paragraph doesn’t always hold true, since this very important and brilliant scientific mind had such a strong interest in religion (and alchemy, interesting enough). I see that you are fighting “materialists”, and it’s ironic that Newton started this way of thinking ( a mechanical, predictable universe) while holding very non-materialist ideas about god, and presumably the soul. On the other hand, the million words he wrote on religion had no impact at all compared to his scientific work. Here I’m merely making conversation.

    The issue of ID is a separate one from the Comer case . If I appear ignorant I apologize, I’ve looked into it enough to know it’s not science and left it at that, so I’m sure I don’t know as much about it as you might think we all should.

    I say that it’s not science for the same reason that string theory “Isn’t even Wrong” as scientists like to say about ideas that not only haven’t been proven right or wrong, but that can never be proven right or wrong by any experiment or scientific methodology conceivable. The primary point of ID is that evolution may exist but that it’s guided by god. This has not been proven, and there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god (or gods) much less that he or she is guiding evolution, so ID is not science.

    One could say that god is involved with the function of gravity, and that he pulls every leaf that falls, but that doesn’t help us calculate lunar spacecraft trajectories, there’s no God variable in any of the equations, and they still work. Likewise, it’s fine to think god is directing evolution, but god’s presence is not required for the process to happen, and his intentions would be unknowable, so it doesn’t help us figure anything out.

    (this is an analogy, not a strawman argument.)

    For example, if we were applying the concept of evolution to the problem of short-term natural selection of drug resistant microbes, or to trying to discover what prehistoric creature gave rise to whales, I’m not sure what help it would be to start with the premise of god’s involvement, other than to make us feel good about it.

    In some branches of ID, it appears to be merely a somewhat dishonest backdoor legal approach to getting creationism back into school, at least that was what one judge implied and some quotes by ID proponents also imply. I’m not sure what your views on creationism is, but in my opinion it’s one step above ID, because instead of being “not even wrong”, it’s at least provably just “wrong.”

  18. Carl,
    I found your comments appalling because I find the education of our next generation to be something worth fighting for and not something to simply toss aside and say, “Oh well,” which is what it seems you are willing to do.

    Your comments about someone being a “Bush appointee” is ad hominem because it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Whoever appointed her is immaterial to what transpired.

    As to your charge that I am engaging in a strawman of my own, I am flabbergasted that you could make that charge. Even if I’m arguing simply against this article, it does not a strawman make. If you have evidence for your side, then please present it. You’ve had three comments so far and no evidence to show for it, except for innuendo and conspiracy theories.

    Now, for your ideas on ID, I have to say that you are greatly confused. What you describe is more akin to theistic evolution which – depending on who you talk to – is either a subset of ID or not. Really, however, I think that theistic evolutionists are confused by NDE and its implications. Still, this sets up one long strawman in that your argument is based on fighting against theistic evolutionism, not ID.

    Lastly, please supply some evidence that ID is a “dishonest backdoor legal approach to getting creationism back into school” and no, Judge Jones’ opinion on the matter does not count as evidence.

  19. Well, I think that another fallacy you engage in throughout your site is overstating the strength of your case.

    You say there isn’t a “shred of evidence”, when I think what you mean to say is that there isn’t any evidence that you’re willing to accept as being strong enough. I think that the letter demanding her resignation by her superior, and all the other things Oleg and I mentioned, and that were not mentioned in your original post (and that you obviously hadn’t seen prior to Oleg giving you the link), may not be enough to convince you that wrongdoing was afoot, but I think it at least amounts to a “shred”. No? A tatter?

    I disagree that mentioning the political background of political appointee in relation to what amounts to a political event is an Ad Hominum, and I’m not sure you and I understand the term the same.

    Anyway, thanks for the conversation. I haven’t bothered to argue about evolution with anyone since college, and this was about as productive and profitable as it was then. Unfortunately, I don;t have time to write endlessly, good luck with your site!

  20. Throughout my site? I overstate my case? I’d like to see evidence of that, considering that I’m careful not to do so and I’ve pointed out holes in ID and strengths in evolution.

    When I say there isn’t a shred of evidence, I actually mean that I have not been presented with a shred of evidence. I suppose that you got me there, since there might be some evidence out there. I think I’m OK in not expecting to see any, however, since there has been ample opportunity for those who advocate certain positions to present this evidence, and none has yet been presented. You’ll also note that I pointed out why Oleg’s link didn’t cut the mustard and was really his attempt at moving the goalposts. In fact, his link showed the exact opposite of what he was trying to show, as I pointed out.

    And, yes, pointing out how someone got their job is an ad hominem attack. ‘Oh, you can’t trust Lizzette, she was appointed by Bush.’ ‘Oh, Lizzette is clearly incompetent because she was appointed by Bush.’ ‘Lizzette is obviously a wicked, evil, vile person because she was appointed by Bush.’ If you recognize how ridiculous the previous three statements are, then you realize why your statement was ad hominem.

  21. I didn’t say Lizzette Reynolds was evil, why would you think being a Bush appointee implies evil? What I did imply was that she was unqualified, unelected, politically motivated, and allot more powerful than Comer. Who wants to fight her?

    She’s not “clearly incompetent because she was appointed by Bush”, she’s unqualified because she has no science or education background. The evidence for that is her resume. The way she got her job is pertinent because being an appointee requires ideological affiliation, but not necessarily merit.

    And once again, I’m not sure how much logic one can demand when examining politics. What was the logic of appointing Lizzette? I don’t know.

    Well, maybe you’re right, and her decision was completely unbiased and there’s nothing for us to be upset about at all.

    On a totally different topic, I was listening to a “skepticality” podcast where they interviewed Dr. Randy Olsen. I bet this is old news to you but he made a movie called “Flock of Dodos”. I watched it on “youtube”, and his premise was that scientists have to be better communicators and entertainers, less angry and arrogant, and that the evolutionists that also promote atheism are making a big mistake. I believe this lines up with some of the feelings you’ve expressed about “materialists” and “evolutionists”, that they’re arrogant?

    In the interview he claimed that it was well received by ID proponents and scientists alike. I’m wondering if you’ve seen it, and if you feel it was fair or unfair?

  22. Carl,
    I know you didn’t say Lizzette Reynolds is evil, that’s the point. You can’t claim that she is unable to do her job or out to get Comer or anything else simply because she was appointed by Bush. That’s why it’s a fallacy. The fact that you reacted so strongly to my fallacious examples should be a clue to you as to why your statements were also fallacious.

    I’d also like to set the record straight. I’m not saying that there’s necessarily nothing for us to be upset about, I thought I had made that clear in previous comments. There might be something going on, but there’s no evidence of the nefarious plot that Darwinists are trying to sell the public. That’s the point. Reynolds may have over-reacted because of the ruling at Dover, she may have erred in good faith. Would I say that there’s nothing to worry about in that case? No, not if an error was made, even if made in good faith. What I object to is this Darwinist PR machine that continually tells us about how Comer was forced out in some nefarious plot without any evidence to back it up. They are taking a situation that may or may not be unfortunate and trying to attack ID with it, and unfairly so.

    As to “Flock of Dodos” I have not seen it, but it is actually on my Netflix list. I’ll bump it up close to the top so that it arrives soon. Thank you for the recommendation.

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