New Draft Afterword

9 Jan

Normal commenting rules apply <grin>


Here’s a question I’ve been pondering for some time.

Why the sudden rise in social-awkwardness, neurodiversity and, ultimately, involuntary celibates (incels)?

I’ve heard quite a few theories, ranging from the practical (past societies had fewer room for people to diverge from the norm, or for people to take advantage of being neurodivergent) to the horrific (people like that used to be shoved out to die, thus removing them from the gene pool).  None of those theories quite seem to explain it.  There were neurodivergents in the past – most of the great inventors and innovators were neurodivergent – and they wouldn’t have existed if neurodivergence had been eliminated completely.  It’s true, of course, that the vast majority of the pre-1900 population had little or no education and thus any neurodivergence might have passed unnoticed.  It’s also true that society was far less tolerant of those who stepped out of line, whoever they were.  But social change alone doesn’t seem to explain it.  What changed?  And why?

Here’s my theory.  I blame the schools.

There is no shortage of problems with modern-day education, practically all of which owe their existence to government policy and bureaucracy.  I could write an entire book on the horrors that result from a combination of incompetence, micromanaging and poor allocation of funds.  But, for the moment, I’m going to focus on a single aspect and how it interacts (badly) with neurodivergence.

The average child, in Britain, enters formal schooling – primary one – when he or she is somewhere around five years old.  There’s some room for manoeuvre, but not much.  He will complete the first year, then move on to primary two.  It is, at least in my experience, very rare for a child to be held back a year.  This – and the combination of ever-growing classes sizes – makes it difficult to make sure that all the children master all the skills they need before they jump up a level.  A child can therefore move onto primary two – and ever-upwards – without actually being ready for it.

This has two separate implications.  First, from an educational point of view, if you fail to master the basics you will be unable to grasp advanced material.  A student who cannot read is not going to be able to study on his own.  A student who cannot do basic maths will be unable to cope with more advanced maths.  He will start falling behind almost at once, no matter how hard he tries.  And yet, the bureaucracy will sort him by his age group rather than his educational aptitude.  Distant bureaucrats are unable to realise that kids learn at different paces, let alone sort the fast from the slow.  They let their preconceptions – and political correctness – blind them to the truth.

The second implication, however, is just as serious.  Some children are lucky enough to develop socially as they develop physically.  Others are not.  A child who lags behind his peers in social development – for example, figuring out the right or wrong thing to say in any given situation – is likely to be shunned by his fellows.  At best, he’ll be seen as the class clown (unfairly, given that he’s not trying for laughs); at worst, he’ll plummet right down to the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Now, this alone would not necessarily be a problem.  However, kids can be cruel.  Very cruel.  The kids in the middle of the social hierarchy tend to establish themselves by dumping on the kids at the bottom (i.e. bullying them).  This is a display of social insecurity, from an adult point of view, but the bottom kids don’t care.  They just want it to stop.  Worse, because they’re targeted by everyone, the rest of the kids don’t want to hang with them.  Of course not.  If you’re standing next to a target, you get targeted yourself.  And if you try to defend them, it just gets worse.  Kids learn, very quickly, that calling a bully out is useless. 

This tends to be true for adults too.  It’s harder to tackle a bully who happens to be popular and/or important to the school (the typical sports star, for example).  It’s a lot easier to pick on the victim, to blame him or her for being targeted.  One of the reasons so many kids books include the ‘adults are useless’ trope is because many adults are useless, when it comes to schooling kids.  They prefer not to intervene because it could come back to haunt them.

What does this mean?  Simple – if you’re popular, people will make exceptions for you.  You’ll never be called out for your mistakes and, even if you are, you won’t suffer for them.  You’ll learn, consciously or not, that you can get away with anything as long as you don’t really cross the line (an attitude that can come back to bite you when you enter the working world).  The unpopular kids, on the other hand, will be jumped on for anything and everything.  They’re seen as weak, unable to fight back.  They make easy targets.  This is part of a ladder of abuse rolling downhill, but they’re at the bottom.  There’s no one they can pick on. 

The target’s social development, therefore, is badly hampered.  However, he or she is still moved up the ladder with the rest of the age group.  They do not get a chance to retake the year with their social peers, but have to remain with their age peers.  This ensures that they are almost always stuck at the bottom, which – as they grow older and their hormones start humming – their development is always behind their peers.  They don’t understand the limits. They don’t comprehend mixed messages – or resent getting them.  By the time they master the in-jokes, they’re outdated.  And so on and so on and so on.

If you get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that social interaction is dangerous, you’ll do as little of it as possible.  You may even come to see it as a threat!  The person who asks you how you are, for example, may be making a honest enquiry, but your history tells you that it’s the prelude to more pain and humiliation.  You’ll say as little as possible, which will make you look stand-offish to people who don’t know you.  Or, alternatively, you’ll overcompensate.  You’ll be too friendly, too eager, too pushy … people will be creeped out, even though you think you’re doing the right thing.  You’ll misjudge a situation badly and wind up with egg on your face.

This can really mess someone up, particularly if they’re a little (or a lot) neurodivergent.  It’s very easy to become bitter and curdled, to give way to resentment and hatred of the popular kids.  It’s very easy to start blaming them for everything.  It’s very easy to look at the lies they tell, and how the rules are warped and twisted for the popular kids, and dismiss them as nothing more than nonsense.  If you can’t win, why bother to play?  And if you get a chance to take revenge, to lash out at the bullies, maybe you’ll take it.  Or maybe you’ll be too scared to take it and hate them even more, because you can’t fight back.  Indeed, one assessment of GamerGate was that nerds were finally fighting back against bullies.  This may not be true – I make no judgement, here – but resentment of bullies intruding into nerdy spaces certainly played a part.  One very cynical remark about incels noted that ‘bogeyman’ was actually a step up for them.  If they’re seen as dangerous, they might not be picked on quite so much.

The good news is that a lot of people grow out of it.  The real world is much kinder to the neurodivergent (particularly in fields where neurodivergence brings useful skills).  As people mature, as they grow used to adult bodies and lives, a lot of problems and old hatreds fade away.  The bad news is that not everyone grows out of it.  If they go to work in the wrong place, marry the wrong person (and so on and so on), they find themselves stuck in the bitter teenage mindset, the one that tells you that everyone else is to blame.

And, if you get hammered for a tiny mistake while others get away with far greater transgressions, because you’re an easy target and they’re not, you’ll find it hard to improve.

And this tends to lead to a descent into depression, isolation and – sometimes – incoherent violence.

What can be done about this?

Most suggestions I’ve heard are poor, in that they don’t tackle the underlying causes of the problem or impinge on other’s rights and freedoms.  They tend to be based more on what ought to be rather than what is.  Indeed, I don’t think there is a single solution that will fix everything.  Humans are social animals.  We want companionship.  But companionship isn’t something that can be forced.  You can’t pay someone to be your friend (well, yes you can, but the friend won’t stay with you when you run out of money). 

First, during basic education, we need to reduce class sizes.  It’s a lot harder for someone to slip through the cracks if the teacher has more time to work with them individually.  Linked to this, we need to be prepared to have low-performing kids repeat a year to give them another chance to master the basics rather than mindlessly advancing them up an increasingly-slippery ladder.

Second, we need to enforce the rules evenly.  The rules should be simple, easy to understand and enforced in all cases.  Nothing destroys the credibility of the law – or school/corporate rules – than having them unevenly enforced, or blatantly accepting different rules for different people.  There must be a clear understanding of what is wrong, a clear statement of the consequences and a willingness to enforce them, even if the person being punished is popular and/or important. 

Third, we need to be a great deal more tolerant of social faux pas.  People make mistakes all the time.  If you have a quiet word with someone who made a faux pas, they’ll be embarrassed but grateful you pointed it out; if you publically humiliate them, they’ll hate you with white hot fury for the rest of their life.  (If you do that, rest assured they’ll strike back if they find themselves in a position to do so.)   Linked to this, if someone really does step over the line, be prepared to justify your actions to people who will not automatically take your side.  If you act like a bully, people won’t give much credence to what you say even if you’re in the right.

And fourth, we need to stop engaging in what John Ringo called ‘Deflection in Abuse Syndrome.’  It’s tempting, if you get bullied or feel insecure (which leads to bullying), to stamp on the people below you, but it only fosters resentment and hated.  It certainly doesn’t convince people to like you.  Picking on the safe targets, the ones who can’t or won’t hit back, just makes you look like a coward.  People will hold you in contempt.

I don’t know if any of these ideas are practical, or if they’ll work if they were tried.  But I do know we have to try.

Christopher G. Nuttall

Edinburgh, 2020

10 Responses to “New Draft Afterword”

  1. G January 9, 2020 at 2:31 pm #

    Unfortunately, schools will always be organized based on 1.) what’s easiest for school administrator’s and 2.) which lobbying groups are the loudest and most politically influential. This is why the best option for young, significantly divergent kids will remain homeschooling (if parents can afford it/have the time)…with social skills addressed by deliberately joining other educational/athletic groups…The other problem your essay doesn’t address is the increasing push for “equity” (at least in the states) is lowering academic standards.

  2. PhilippeO January 9, 2020 at 2:52 pm #

    Not sure if there actually an increase.

    For most of human history, people live with people they know their entire lives, social interaction is very minimal. You lives in your villages which know everybody, even if go to town your interaction with your guild. In most cases not only you know them their entire lives, your parent know their parent, and your children will know their children. You wouldn’t even know ‘atypical’, since every kid you know is different, and you know only very small number of them.

    Incel only arise after Internet which show how rare there are. Autism only identifiable during age of mass warfare and modern technology.

    Its similar to why modern world had so many diseases. Previously they would just called gout or inflammation or other vague terms.

  3. Alexey G. January 9, 2020 at 6:51 pm #

    About Schools, I believe CPG Gray once made a youtube clip on the subject – and I mostly agree on it. Eventually, a sufficiently good AI program will be developed and each student will study via it. So everything will be personally adjusted – subject preferences, difficulty, pace, and level. Schools will be more like places where children spend time while parents work and teachers will be less like lecturers and more like caretakers. Like a kindergarden with a smart AI for teaching.

    • Ann January 9, 2020 at 11:53 pm #

      You beat me to the AI issue but while an educational AI is one option a socialised AI is another option and could be part of every child’s life from birth to death making an important psychological difference to each child. There are a lot of social skills that are teachable and can make a big difference in social perceptions even among children and an AI can monitor groups of kids to promote appropriate group interactions and minimise bad ones. .

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard January 10, 2020 at 12:02 am #

        Why am I getting an image of a world where nobody learns “social interactions” because their AIs tell them to “how to behave”? 😈

  4. Robert Lee January 10, 2020 at 12:31 am #

    Neurodivergent, as you put it, was a term coined by disabled activists to describe those persons who have cognitive functioning outside the normal or “neurotypical” range. This was initially used to describe those who are within the autism spectrum of neurocognitive functioning. This term changed to Neurodiversity to remove the stigma of divergence from the normal population and possibly to include ADD/ADHD and other high-functioning neurological diverse ways of thinking.

    While I understand that one’s background shapes their way of approaching the way one traces the cause-effect origins of problems like the high rates of “Neurodiversity”, social awkwardness, and rising rates of those who describe themselves as “incels”, perhaps a more academic approach should be employed. I understand that Mr. Nuttall had a poor experience from boarding schools and that shapes his thinking in this matter, perhaps there’s another explanation.

    I’m providing my background so you can see what experiences influence my thinking in this matter: When my father was born, the last generation of “boomer”, ADHD, as a diagnosis wasn’t even a glimmer in the eye of some psychiatrist or psychologist. He would’ve, undoubtably been diagnosed with the disorder, and so would my mother. Having not believed in such a thing, my parents never had me visit a psychologist to have the diagnosis made despite the urging of many of my primary school teachers. I was poor in concentration, reading, writing, and math skills (quite to the dismay of my Asian mother). Once I got to 5th grade, where I had my first male teacher, an ex Marine, I straightened up, reading well-past my grade level and became a much improved student, all without the “help” of the diagnosis of ADHD or the medications usually prescribed. This was indeed fortuitous considering that I could never become a USAF pilot, my current profession, if I were to continue with that diagnosis, and taking medication past my 14th birthday, or required accommodation (extra time to take tests, or a “helper” to explain test questions).

    Of course being only one of two Asians in my middle and high school life, I was bullied, spit upon, and harassed, until I stood up to one of the “popular” people that routinely bullied me. After that physical altercation in 8th grade, the bullying stopped. I had a small circle of friends and while on the soccer (football to you Brits) team, not a jock, National Honor Society member, not a “brain” or nerd, and not a drug user or smoker so not a “druggie”, “burn-out” or “Emo”. This meant that I could flit from one group to another and not be noticed in either a bad or good way.

    Mr. Nuttall, you are excellent in writing your characters. Your character development is very skilled, and there’s not one protagonist that I can’t identify with or connect with. This must mean that you have a way to express your empathy with your fictional creations that allow your reader to express feelings for the characters you create. I highly envy your skill in this regard. I therefore surmise that your ability to bring this skill to bear in school could’ve made your experiences there much more enjoyable, had you been in a position to do so. Your ability to connect with the villains of your boarding school as well as the oppressed should have been helpful to you in some form or another, in dealing with either side of the social hierarchy.

    You mention “picking on the safe targets, the ones who can’t or won’t hit back, just makes you look like a coward. People will hold you in contempt.” That’s not the point and they don’t think of themselves as cowards. There are a myriad reasons why bullies bully. It’s to preserve the social/academic/athletic hierarchy, to cause those who are outside the norm to conform to a perceived group standard, or to elevate the bully in status, or just because it makes them feel better about themselves.

    Bullies surround themselves with other like-minded individuals in this way.

    Habitual bullies tend to be those who have been victimized themselves and now feel the need to pass that victimization along to others. The safe targets, the ones that don’t fight back are exactly the ones that bullies gravitate towards with malice. Bullies are like sharks, they go for the fish that’s in distress or hurt. They are just passing the pain along to a safe target. Once the target fights back and isn’t deemed a push-over, the bully loses interest.

    Bullying is sometimes institutionally supported because it leads to conformity, or at least it does in elite schools, and in many Asian cultures. In my mom’s country of origin, if you were different, you ended up bullied. Conformity to societal norms and sublimation of the individual are important in maintaining cultural norms in some societies.

    What I’m saying is that bullying will never go away, is sometimes tolerated by school officials, and even encouraged. No level of concern will eliminate this type of behavior, only mitigate the level of damage it causes.

    Another problem you mention is the disproportionate effect of mistakes… well, let me use your words: “ And, if you get hammered for a tiny mistake while others get away with far greater transgressions, because you’re an easy target and they’re not, you’ll find it hard to improve.” I agree, it’s unfair, but in teaching circles there’s a name for this. It’s called “The Halo Effect” and “Horns Effect” ( I was the beneficiary of the “Halo Effect” while I was in Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training”, while my classmate was the victim of the “Horns Effect” on our formation checkride. During the formation checkride we fly in close formation with the student in the front seat and the instructor pilot in the back seat and perform maneuvers then formation landing back at the base. The weather had not been great for two weeks prior to the sortie. Since I was deemed a “strong performer” in formation flight, the schedulers thought I should take advantage of the weather and fly navigation/instrument sorties. I had a lot of practice flying navigation syllabus sorties rather than formation flights prior to the checkride. My friend, a below-average student, had many formation sorties to get up to speed while I flew the navigation sorties because I was a “strong performer”. You might think I was the victim and my friend was the beneficiary, but not so. We’re graded on a continuum from “Outstanding”, “Excellent”, “Good”, “Fair”, “Unable/Unsatisfactory”. When we flew the mission, my fingertip formation was “Good” at best, but I received an “Excellent” on the maneuvers and did well in other maneuvers overall and earned a one-downgrade (from “Outstanding” to “Excellent” on the one item) “Outstanding” grade for the checkride. My friend, because he wasn’t a great student, had the evaluator pilots looking for reasons to find his performance unsatisfactory. So, they found one. He flew below the bottom of the block of airspace we were practicing in by 50ft, while I remained above him during the formation maneuver. He went out the bottom, so he failed to stay inside the airspace, which led to a failure in airmanship as well, and a failure in planning, and a failure in navigation, in airwork, in flight lead responsibility, in performing a “loop”, and in safety. His one mistake was made into a 8 item downgrade “Unsatisfactory” checkride.

    What am I saying? Those individuals who are perceived to be “Good” will be treated as such, as they have “halos”. They’ll also be given the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. Those perceived as different or having “horns” – poor students, incompetent, socially awkward, loners, outsiders… will not be given any latitude. As my father said to me many times: “one lives up, or down, to the expectations of oneself or others.” If you are a “golden child” others will treat you as such. If you make a mistake, it’ll be considered a “one-off”. If you’re the awkward one, then you’ll be treated as such, and your mistakes will only prove that you’re substandard. Incels take heed if you don’t want to be an incel!

    It’s more important for teachers and other evaluators to recognize this fallacy in grading and act accordingly. This, I’m told, by friends who are school teachers, is taught as pedagogy and implemented in praxis. This would be an example of teachers failing to implement theory into practical application.

    Getting back to why I think you could look at this another way. When ADHD was established, the number of cases began ballooning to large proportions. This was even more so when teachers perceived this as a means to control unruly and disruptive students by psychological intervention and medication. As teachers lost the ability discipline students, they used accepted courses of action to control the classroom – rightly or wrongly so.

    As awareness of a problem, especially one with a label, reaches a critical mass in any society, the numbers of those with social awkwardness, “Neurodiversity” and the label of “incel” will necessarily increase. It’s a statistical fact.

    With regard to social awkwardness, well, as a millennial, I rely on social media and don’t feel the need to hear the voice of the person I’m communicating with. I rarely use the “phone” function to make a call, I text. It gives the person texted the latitude to ignore it until a convenient time or to answer it immediately. Very convenient and I don’t have the worry that I must talk with the person calling immediately. My friends usually call when it’s really important. Otherwise we text. We’re less connected to face-to-face interactions than previous generations. We are more connected electronically than any other generation, but that makes our interactions with those we don’t know more abrasive-seeming, and more brusque. Our manners can be lacking unless we practice or are familiar with what’s expected. As a military officer, I’m required to attend Wing formal ceremonies like “Dining Ins” ( or meet up at the Officer’s Club after work to drink to excess and interact with my colleagues at a juvenile level of behavior for “military cohesiveness”. Millennials, I’m told by the “Old Craniums” don’t do that as well as previous generations. Eh, whatevs ;).

    Social awkwardness, therefore, is something that’s happening as a consequence of the technological advances made and the changing norms of individual social interactions. Of course, this will increase as the means of accepted communications changes over time.

    Apologies for being long-winded.

  5. telastx January 10, 2020 at 3:12 am #

    We no longer have a society.

    We used to be born, live, and die within a hundred mile area. We knew lots of people there. We interacted with them face-to-face. We learned all the nuances of nonverbal communication. We learned who was ‘odd’ and who was loud and who was quiet. We learned the values and rituals and rhythm of life from our parents and elders (and we learned that they were fallible).

    But no more. We interact through a screen. We watch movies together, instead of watching each other (live theater is watching each other, because the actors can actually read the crowd). We play videogames together, instead of playing boardgames face-to-face.

    And we don’t understand the primary language we use to communicate any more. A majority of our communication is nonverbal, but we don’t know how to speak or understand it. Studies demonstrate this over and over.

    With the freedom of travel, we no longer have to stay local. We can go anywhere and be anything. But on the downside, we no longer have common values. We no longer know who we can trust, and who to question. And the first lie is to ourselves. When I lived in Cool Mountain Town, Colorado, tons of young people would show up, seeking geographic rebirth. And eventually, nearly all of them would trip upon the fact that they were the same selfish jerks they’d always been.

    With the freedom of the internet, we can find common groups. But those groups can spiral outside of any known reality, as with the incels and their commiseration and blame of women. (Guys, everybody gets shot down. Everybody fails over and over. Failure is a great teacher; get your learn on.) Or like certain political or ethnic groups.

    I think we’ve lost a great deal through our modern world, and the wonders it has brought us. I don’t think we need to all settle into agrarian villages again, but we should certainly look into what we’ve lost, how it impacts us, and how we can fill in those blanks, without it becoming some kind of political indoctrination.

    As for the neurodivergent, we are all slightly neurodivergent. The ‘bell curve’ applies here, too. But the bonds of society that used to hold us closet to the median have unraveled, and we’re finding more people ‘on the spectrum’ or with odd personality quirks (and support groups that ensure they preserve and grow those quirks).

    My fear is that sociology has already fallen to the disease that is politically correctness, and is incapable of studying the patchwork quilt that is an individual’s ‘society’. And psychology is soon to follow. And then only old curmudgeons like me will sit and wonder, “What have we lost? And what will replace it?”

  6. Guy Marc GAGNÉ January 11, 2020 at 2:18 am #

    Interesting, some obstacles to societal evolution/emancipation are hampered in more or less the same way in various constituencies, id est: they seem universal!
    As in the UK, we have a public and private school system in Canada.
    Where as national guidelines exist in only the broadest sense, education remains a Provincial jurisdiction. So you wind up with a slew of standards across the country.
    Astonishingly, we are the country in the Western World with the highest percentage of the population with a university degree.
    I live in Montreal, my kids went to private pre-school (Montessori), private elementary & secondary College Stanislas, integrated program Quebec/France for students to obtain Sec. V (High Sch.) diploma from QC Govt (3e in Fr. Syst.). All that adds up to 11 yrs, excluding pre-school.
    Going all the way through, to Première, got you a BAC Français, they count backwards.
    We have CEGEP Cours d’Enseignement Général & Professionnel (Jr. College) lasting 2 yrs for the general stream, 3 yrs for professional (techs, basic nursing, etc.). Then, off to Uni.

    Montessori is an adaptive & inclusive environment, great from any perspective, small groups interact with trained staff. Expensive, as class sizes are restrictive owing to the teacher student ratio. Amazing for preschool and elementary!
    At Collège Stanislas (part of the Intl network), French faculty members were often well versed in their subject matter but as with a majority of teachers from France, pedagogically incompetent. Where as the locals (Canadians or French ex-pats) that had attended University here were much better educators, they went beyond pontifical subject regurgitation.
    The public system here is far from perfect, but is well regarded in Canada and abroad.
    They try to identify the kids that need assistance from the get go, speech therapists and what not are integrated into the system for immediate evaluation and adaptive measures to be applied. Not perfect but they try, and apparently no one gets a free pass any longer!
    Although I shall never regret the house I spent on my children’s education,

    I am quite certain that the Exchequer and our Finance Ministers wail eternally at the two greatest expenditures of the Crown, Health and education. Befuddling as it seems!
    We are constantly assaulted with nonsense about the size of the budget allocated to each.
    Yet they never seem to fix what is wrong or get it entirely right, do they!?!
    Plus ça change…

  7. Guy Marc GAGNÉ January 11, 2020 at 1:45 pm #

    What I failed to mention, was that the Govt is planning to implement the removal of an a subject from the current curricula, namely ‘ Ethics & Culture ‘, which had been instituted to replace religion as a non-denominational approach to reflect the influx of immigrants from all asunder. The law in Québec requires all new immigrants to attend the French language school system (religious School Boards having been replaced by linguistic French/English ones). To further protect French in Québec, within the context of a small island in the English sea of North-America, official bilingualism notwithstanding.
    It was something that my wife reminded me of whilst discussing the current kerfuffle within the Royal family, how flippant the kids were becoming due to lack of being anchored to some semblance of commonly accepted rules of conduct. Further accentuating the abdication of responsibility by many parents of their role as moral compasses for their offspring, who think it is up to school/society to fill this role. Obviously, bureaucrats and social engineer types have had a non-negligible impact on this state of affairs, apologists of all stripes have attempted to hold sway as well. Id est, the situation is in flux with a mitigated outcome to be anticipated at best.
    This speaks directly to your point about the schools having a direct impact on the way things have slipped over the years.
    The distinction in French between learning (apprentissage/scolarisation) and education, which refers to manners and ‘savoir vivre’, may not be entirely consequential to the debate but does illustrate the seminal differences that exist in terms of separation of tasks for the current crop of teachers: 1- conveying knowledge 2- Being the instruments of social adaptation. Realistically, this is beyond their initial training/job description, contributing to the mess in most of the democracies.

  8. Jacqueline harris January 12, 2020 at 3:22 pm #

    Bullying is certainly a problem. My teacher was very apathetic during a particularly difficult time in my life. But I also think a big problem in society is escapism. Through games,drugs,social media or anything really. Where forced to socialize less and this leads some people to socialize not at all. Basically technology and addictions take up our time. We need to go outside more. Get some some sun. Less screen time.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: