RedNeckoBlogger

Yea, it seems the ID folks have to ride in the back of the (school) bus. The judges said so!
 

I don't know why biologists for the last 150 years just didn't think of it. Evolution is "absurd"! You've just tossed the last 150 years of biology on its head with..


..oh, wait. You're appealing to your incredulity, while demonstrating absolutely no knowledge on the subject whatsoever. I guess your proclamation isn't that authoritative after all.
 

"The greatest outrages of the 20th century from Stalin and Hitler to Pol Pot used evolution as their foundation."

Another absurd suggestion. Not only can you not demonstrate any connection between common descent of all life on Earth to Hitler or Pol Pot's regimes, but you're apparently completely ignorant of the fact that Stalin personally OPPOSED the teaching of Darwinian evolution in favour of Lysenkoian biology (which led to the destruction of the USSR's agricultural industry). But then, most people who disparage evolution seem as abysmally ignorant of history as they are of biology and -- like with science -- prefer to make up lies about history to support their claims.
 

Well, Mr. Necko... you sure pushed Mr. Anonymous' buttons! (#1 & 2, I think they're the same person)

Point of order... Lysenkoian biology is just another version of evolution... I don't think God's (aka: ID) in its' equation either.

Ca...ca...can...can't we all jus... just get along?
 

"Lysenkoian biology is just another version of evolution"

Which was thoroughly discredited by Darwin's time. Stalin's strict adherence to it and his refusal to accept the validity of Darwin's theories destroyed the Soviet agricultural industry. Any claims that Stalin appealed to the theory of evolution are outright lies; but then, lies seem to be the only field in which creationists show any competence.

But, of course, so many people who haven't studied even high-school level biology feel fully qualified to tell others that a biological theory that has endured for nearly 150 years is somehow false based upon a string of logical fallacies and blatant falsehoods, throwing in a bogus "guilt by association" claim to go with it, throwing out the names of famous recent brutal dictators and claiming that somehow the theory of common descent of all life on earth somehow logically leads to their regimes. Of course, no actual logical connection is shown between the theory of evolution and practices within any of the respective regimes, but then making such logical connections would require that they exist, and since they don't, there's nothing to do but assert them.
 

Mr. Anonymous we both know Lysenkoian biology NEVER had any credibility... other then with Mr. Stalin. But... it is folly to say one must be a Darwinist to farm... if one plants and cultivates properly... one's theory of origins won't matter, you'll get a good crop! Most modern agruculture methods began not with Darwinism, but of the work of Gregor Mendel.

Mendel's experiments in genetics had nothing to do with Darwin or "ID" (though I would speculate Mr. Mendel was a creationist),
but have gained universal acceptence among biologists.

Darwin's theories appear to jump into the middle of the (gene) pool... there are already critters around to evolve. Did he ever seriously discuss/address origins, or did the "life by accident" idea come later?
 

"Mr. Anonymous we both know Lysenkoian biology NEVER had any credibility... other then with Mr. Stalin. But... it is folly to say one must be a Darwinist to farm..."

My point was that Stalin rejected Darwinian evolution so thoroughly in favour of a discredited piece of pap that he destroyed the Soviet agriculture industry, not that accepting Darwinan evolution is itself essential. It's not, as evidenced by the success of farmers before Darwin was born. My point was that Stalin was NOT influenced by the theory of evolution, as the blogger here dishonestly claims.


"Darwin's theories appear to jump into the middle of the (gene) pool... there are already critters around to evolve. Did he ever seriously discuss/address origins, or did the "life by accident" idea come later?"

The theory of evolution works on populations of imperfectly replicating biological organisms. It's not the "middle" of the gene pool, it's at the very beginning, just after the first life forms came to exist. Their ultimate origin is not covered by the theory of evolution (as the mechanisms of evolution wouldn't apply then) and the means by which they came to exist isn't important to the theory (as life will evolve no matter how it ultimately originated). Darwin did personally speculate on the matter (though not as part of his theory), suggesting that the first life forms had life "breathed into them by their Creator".

But creationists ignore that little fact, because it interferes with their lie that evolution is somehow inherently atheistic.
 

Evolutionists are the ultimate cowards! Anonymous just resorts to angry name calling! Sooooo typical, my friend! Evolutionists (an arrogant lot!) hide and whine behind a misinterpretation of the first amendment to stifle, not encourage debate... they cannot and will not admit Darwinism and its' variations is just another religion! If ID is such nonsense, have the debate... and destroy ID forever, instead of hiding behind likeminded judges! I won't hold my breath... methinks you DO have a right to be afraid of an honest debate!
 

I’m all for the debate...bring it on! Darwinism and "its’ variations" are universally accepted in modern biology… God did it, that’s all... just wasn’t satisfactory! Mr. RedNeckoBlogger is just trying (and apparently succeeding) to push "buttons"! AND...I really have no problem with that... as I said BRING IT ON!
 

"Evolutionists are the ultimate cowards!"

Yes, because I've stuck around to defend my claims rather than running away from them. That's...not what I'd call cowardly.


"Anonymous just resorts to angry name calling!"


Nice of you to completely ignore my explanations for why the comments in the blog were false. Honestly, the blogger offered absolutely nothing of substance against the theory of evolution, so there was not much more I could say.


"Sooooo typical, my friend!"

What, someone who actually understands evolution correcting the blatant falsehoods that creationist make about it? Yes, that's pretty typical. Also typical is creationists repeating the same lies even after they've been completely debunked.

Now, do you have an actual argument to make with real evidence, or are you just going to insult me further?


"Evolutionists (an arrogant lot!) hide and whine behind a misinterpretation of the first amendment to stifle, not encourage debate..."

I'm so terribly sorry that you feel wronged that a completely non-scientific bit of mindless conjecture is not given the same quality treatment as a well-established scientific theory that is backed by a mountain of evidence and has survived rigourous testing for more than 100 years. I'm not a fan of affirmative action, myself.


"they cannot and will not admit Darwinism and its' variations is just another religion!"

That would be because evolution is not a religion. Why do you call it a religion? do you have a low opinion of religion and think that calling evolution a religion is somehow disparaging? It's not, it's simply a false statement. Evolution is a theory to explain the diversity of life on earth, nothing more. It does not qualifiy as "religion".


If ID is such nonsense, have the debate... and destroy ID forever, instead of hiding behind likeminded judges!

Strawman. The issue was over tearing a bit of non-scientific conjecture as science when it has failed to meet the standards required as science in a public school. Public schools are for teaching established knowledge, not for throwing out every possible idea, no matter how far-fetched, and "letting the students debate and decide", especially when they're fed the lie that ID is "science" to begin with.

If ID wants to be a contender, it needs to establish itself as valid science, not try to do an end-run around science and shove itself into public schools as science, giving it special treatment over every single actual scientific theory. There is no rationale for that.


"I won't hold my breath... methinks you DO have a right to be afraid of an honest debate!"

Really? Go ahead and make an actual argument then, rather than attacking my character.
 

"I’m all for the debate...bring it on! Darwinism and "its’ variations" are universally accepted in modern biology… God did it, that’s all... just wasn’t satisfactory!"

There's also the question of which "God" is being referenced, as humans have worshipped a multitude of deities over the millenia. And then there's the fact that according to the major proponents of ID, there need be no "God" involved. The backers of ID publically state that ID isn't a religious concept, which makes me wonder why the angry bloggers and various talk show hosts and people like Pat Robertson try to claim it's some kind of anti-God agenda. It's like they don't even know what ID is, but they want it taught...


...or maybe the ID pushers are lying about their true motives.
 

"Mr. RedNeckoBlogger is just trying (and apparently succeeding) to push "buttons!"

But he's honest about one thing... ID IS Creationism in new clothes! I don't know much about the (ID) subject, but I know one thing.
ID folks hurt their cause by pretending it's NOT about God.

from anonymous:
"If ID wants to be a contender, it needs to establish itself as valid science"

Well I got to go with RNB on this one... this is the evolutionists "staw man". If evolutionists are making the rules (on "valid" science) ID doesn't stand a chance to "prove" itself. Cause to be "science" it has to be "evolution".

Evolutionists need to admit they don't have all the answers, admit that many of them ARE hostile to the idea of "God", and be willing to discuss openly the weaknesses of their theory (and we know they are many). ID types need to be honest that "ID" starts at the Book of Genesis. (Which could be true, maybe God did do it).

Honesty, fellows (ladies) give it a try!
 

"Well I got to go with RNB on this one... this is the evolutionists "staw man". If evolutionists are making the rules (on "valid" science) ID doesn't stand a chance to "prove" itself. Cause to be "science" it has to be "evolution"."

No, it doesn't have to be evolution. That isn't what I said and it isn't what I meant. It needs to establish itself as valid science by showing that, like evolution (and relativity and electromagnetism and every other actual scientific theory) it fits the scientific method. Thus far ID proponents have failed to demonstrate that ID actually meets the requirements for a scientific theory (which requires, among things, that an explanation make useful predictions, be subject to testing and be potentially falsifiable).


"Evolutionists need to admit they don't have all the answers,"

No one claims that evolution has all of the answers. Evolution only addresses a single specific event in biology. That's not "all the answers". This is another creationist strawman.


"admit that many of them ARE hostile to the idea of "God","

But the idea of "God" or any other deities is totally irrelevant to the validity of evolution.


"and be willing to discuss openly the weaknesses of their theory (and we know they are many)."

SO NAME SOME!


"ID types need to be honest that "ID" starts at the Book of Genesis. (Which could be true, maybe God did do it)."

If this is the case then it decidedly is NOT science, because it is extending itself to a field of study that is outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. Science cannot and does not address the supernatural, thus any explanation that invokes supernatural agents -- including the Christian God -- are not science by definition. That doesn't make them false, but it does mean that they cannot be meaningfully addressed by science and they are NOT "equal" to scientific theories.
 

"If this is the case then it decidedly is NOT science, because it is extending itself to a field of study that is outside of the scope of scientific inquiry"

Please Mr. Anonymous you're so "circler" You require "science" to be godless, to fit your narrow definition! If God is real then God and His works ARE scientific because they're TRUE! Evolution has NEVER satisfactorily proved a method of "evolving" only offering PURE speculations, and anger if anyone dares question! Sort of like wearing the emperor's new clothes! Evolution (as now practiced) is ULTIMATELY anti-science, because it will not allow itself to be questioned at its’ roots!

P.S. Great article at the link below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html
 

"Please Mr. Anonymous you're so "circler"

This makes no sense.


You require "science" to be godless, to fit your narrow definition!

No, science is not "godless". Science simply does not study the realm of supernatural agents, including gods. That doesn't mean that science denies their existence, it just means that science cannot make meaningful statements regarding them.


If God is real then God and His works ARE scientific because they're TRUE!

Science is about studying the natural universe, not "everything that is TRUE"


Evolution has NEVER satisfactorily proved

Absolutely nothing in science is ever "proved".


a method of "evolving" only offering PURE speculations,

And the fossil record and the history of DNA and observations of populations of organisms actually evolving.

There are two kinds of people who claim that evolution is based upon nothing but pure speculation: the dishonest and the ignorant. Which are you?


and anger if anyone dares question!

Incorrect assessment. What you see as "anger" from "questions" is actually frustrations at the same debunked creationist claims repeated ad nauseum despite being exposed as faulty or completely false every single time.

Of course, thus far you've not brought up a single substantial objection to evolution at all, despite me asking for them previously. Do you have an actual argument against the theory, or just more inane ranting on how much I can't stand hearing objections even though thus far no one has brought any actual objections to the theory at all.


Sort of like wearing the emperor's new clothes!

Do you have an actual argument to make against evolution, or are you just going to spout tired cliches and mindless generalizations without substance?


Evolution (as now practiced)

How is evolution "practiced"?


is ULTIMATELY anti-science, because it will not allow itself to be questioned at its’ roots!

This is a lie. Evolution is "questioned" by professionals every day. The problem for creationists is that thus far none of these questions have managed to show a fault in the theory. And if you disagree, present an alleged flaw rather than simply asserting that such flaws exist.


P.S. Great article at the link below:

Your article has nothing to do with the discussion. I agree that Dawkins is talking out of his field when he speaks on theology, but an atheism/theism discussion is completely irrelevant to the subject of the theory of evolution.
 

"...it fits the scientific method"

How? Is it testable, falsifiable, any way observable? How many critters have you seen evolve? Can you duplicate it in the lab?

You just dig up the same bones with different stories! Creationists see the same architect, evolutionists a line of kinship… all need a "miracle" to happen.

However Mr. Anonymous, I will (in your case) withdraw the statement "Evolutionists are the ultimate cowards!" … I find your enthusiasm for argument stimulating… but I couldn’t disagree with you more that evolution has any relationship to the "scientific method" Evolution has presumptions and assumptions and little else to support its' conclusions!
 

How? Is it testable,

Yep. It makes specific predictions about fossil order which can be tested by looking at the fossil record. When it became possible to examine DNA, evolution could be used to make specific predictions about what should be found through examining the DNA of species based upon how closely they are supposed to be related.


falsifiable,

Find a Precambrian rabbit fossil. Find a transposon in whales and cows that isn't presnet in hippos. Find a number of observations that run counter to what the ToE says should be observed in DNA or the fossil record and the theory becomes quite troubled.


any way observable? How many critters have you seen evolve?

Me personally? None. But evolution has been observed in small scales on rapdily reproducing populations. A little bit of research would show you that one. Also note that "observable" does not necessarily mean "directly observable" (though evolution has been directly observed); it can also refer to observing regular occurances of predicted effects of an event explained by a scientific theory. "Gravity", for example, can't be observed, however the effects of the force called "gravity" are readily observable. Evolution is observable in this sense as well.


Can you duplicate it in the lab?

Experiments regarding evolution can be duplicated in a lab, but being able to recreate an event "in a lab" is not a requirement for scientific validity.


You just dig up the same bones with different stories!

Wrong. If you think that evolution is based solely upon speculation following "digging up bones" then you have not given any serious study to the science.


Creationists see the same architect,

Creationists start with an assumption and force-fit all data to their assumption (discarding and ignoring data that can't be made to fit).


evolutionists a line of kinship…

Evolution is based upon a conclusion drawn after making observations, not beforehand. That's the one of the fundamental differences between many religious approaches and any scientific approach.


all need a "miracle" to happen.

Evolution requires no suspension of the physical properties of the universe.


However Mr. Anonymous, I will (in your case) withdraw the statement "Evolutionists are the ultimate cowards!" … I find your enthusiasm for argument stimulating… but I couldn’t disagree with you more that evolution has any relationship to the "scientific method"

Then perhaps you could explain the flaws of the theory rather than just asserting that it is flawed.


Evolution has presumptions and assumptions and little else to support its' conclusions!"

This is simply false. Evolution is a conclusion drawn from observing living organisms, fossilized remains of organisms and -- in light of recent technologies -- DNA of organisms. Darwin made observations on the Galapagos islands and that, combined with his existing knowledge both of living organisms and fossil discoveries led him to the theory of evolution. He did not start with an assumption of evolution and attempt to force-fit his observations to fit it. It is not based upon any unfounded presumptions and/or assumptions. And if you do disagree, have the intellectual honesty to support your claims rather than just making them outright.
 

"Also note that "observable" does not necessarily mean "directly observable" (though evolution has been directly observed)"
(Where?)

Also... I saw a show (Discovery, I think) that said whales desended from land animals... kin to the cow.

Hmmm... did the pre-whales wade in up to their knees till they evolved fins? What did they do (and eat) in the meantime for the few million years it took to get the fins? Did they "decide" to evolve, 'cause they thought living in the ocean was a good idea?

Can you help me with the above question? Anonymous? Anybody?
 

It's time to jump in and comment on the comments.

I'm old enough to remember "Cosmos" with the late Carl Sagan... I vividly remember him stating (talking about origins) that one day in the organic soup of early earth, "Quite by accident" life began... at the time I remember I sat up in my chair and blurted outloud: "He's making a philisophical statement, not a scientific one!"

Most prominent evolutionists (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) like Sagan, seem to want to wind the philosophy and the science of evolution tightly together. The philosophy of evolution is totally hostile to the idea of a creator and is often hostile to science itself, when any research challeges it dogma (like the work of Michael J. Behe)!

It is the foundation of secular humanism... and will not tolerate being questioned! To the point of trying to outlaw any alternative offered. Friends, fascism appears to live in the "science" racket!

Note to: "Bones" I wonder about the whales myself!!!????
 

Also... I saw a show (Discovery, I think) that said whales desended from land animals... kin to the cow.

And the hippo. Do you have a point?

Hmmm... did the pre-whales wade in up to their knees till they evolved fins?

No.


What did they do (and eat) in the meantime for the few million years it took to get the fins?

What do they eat now? The proto-whales likely ate the same thing or something similar.


Did they "decide" to evolve, 'cause they thought living in the ocean was a good idea?

No. Evolution does not involve conscious "decisions". If you're going to attack the theory, you might want to learn what it actually says rather than tilting at windmills founded in your own ignorance.

Can you help me with the above question? Anonymous? Anybody?

You could try starting here.
 

It's time to jump in and comment on the comments.

Seeing as how you put this on your main blog page with its own entry, I'll respond to it there.
 

http://[url=http://www.swiatnarutogra.jun.pl/viewtopic.php?p=1779&sid=e01a68b78ec97547c90c6e1c72c210fd]Cette sorting to like a uncover 2012 n’azure excessively pas le Nike Swell up au talon (comme la OG de 89 et la reedition de 99) mais le logo Jumpman Jordan[/url]
http://[url=http://rgt.bplaced.net/viewtopic.php?p=74#74]La take away arbore un dessus noir contraste correct le Jumpman rouge et un dessous en cement-splatter gris Jordan[/url]
[url=http://paryinfosoft.com/forum/index.php?topic=2244.new#new]Abercrombie and Fitch britannique boutique en ligne, nous offre les modes les resuscitate courants Abercrombie witter on les femmes et les hommes Supervised[/url]
http://[url=http://ron.joinet.ro/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=666]Abercrombie & Fitch est la marque de vêtements originale et riche d'une histoire enracinée dans le pre-eminent during again et la c?te Est Ivy Confederation Supervised[/url]
[url=http://oompodcast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17322]Cette construction 2012 n’je sais quoi pas le Nike Nip au talon (comme la OG de 89 et la reedition de 99) mais le logo Jumpman the[/url]
[url=http://sicksite.homelinux.com/forum/addMessage.php?thread=194&redirect=%2Fforum%2Fmessages.php%3Fthread%3D194]Decouvrez sans totting up tarder les photos dans la following et dites nous si vous comptez la prendre ou pas! the[/url]
[url=http://theoyun.awardspace.biz/forum/topic/38192?replies=1#post-38206]Son satin noir et des sandales en daim vanter retour arcs, une finition plissee, et 4 talons. Supervised[/url]
[url=http://www.cvlavoro.com/forum/38-hostess-e-promoter-/post.html?do=new]Abercrombie et Fitch Le monde des équipements de loisirs de prime priest listing, Abercrombie & Fitch a lancé une série de sélection épais de haute qualité Jordan[/url]
[url=http://wetoppost.com/bord/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3363]Affectedness Jordan V Oyster-white Badger Red Skulking qui sortira officiellement le 26 janvier 2013 the[/url]
[url=http://talk.klcdata.org/viewtopic.php?p=62572#62572]Cette construction 2012 n’ambiance pas le Nike Codification au talon (comme la OG de 89 et la reedition de 99) mais le logo Jumpman Supervised[/url]

 

http://[url=http://commill.info/index.php?topic=8122.new#new]Sa cheerfulness est fabriquee a partir de guipure et caracteristiques degrader la coloration et finition festonnee.[/url]
http://[url=http://a2motocafe.com/index.php?topic=31636.0]La 2e lieu Revient a juin chaussure de Stuart Weitzman au talon aiguille en metal, Suivi not reasonably Jimmy Choo sandales juin.[/url]
[url=http://www.free-forum.tym.sk/viewtopic.php?p=15682#15682]Abercrombie et Fitch Le monde des équipements de loisirs de chief beget, Abercrombie & Fitch a lancé une série de sélection épais de haute qualité Jordan[/url]
[url=http://www.csgothic.com/forum/abercrombie-abercrombie-conform-ment-together-wit-t4529.html]abercrombie, abercrombie fr Conformément à la together with stricte dans le processus de couture, les détails de remplir le subtil de sa qualifiée Supervised[/url]
http://[url=http://graphicdreams.altervista.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1350#1350]Son satin noir et des sandales en daim vanter retour arcs, une finition plissee, et 4 talons. Jordan[/url]
http://[url=http://burn-arena.mojkgb.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=785]En Octobre de 2011, Abercrombie & Fitch a découvert Carly Rae "Chortle Me Peut-être? et a lancé la chanson sur la bande son officielle Jordan[/url]
[url=http://trendypeak.com/minibb/index.php?action=vthread&forum=2&topic=2542&page=12238#msg466814]Dash Jordan V Oyster-white Predilection Red Sad qui sortira officiellement le 26 janvier 2013 Jordan[/url]
[url=http://www.soflariders.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=759560]Nous comprenons l'ouragan de sable a causé défis cashier beaucoup de nos clients the[/url]
http://[url=http://cs-czerminiacy.ugu.pl/viewtopic.php?p=124#124]A initiation vue, la Nike Dunk Revealing LR Thermo est une serious paire en daim et cuir noir et bien non Supervised[/url]
[url=http://paranormalcraftitalia.altervista.org/forum/newthread.php?fid=8]imprimes animaliers et des inserts decoratifs metalliques integres dans Gengrang suffisamment accrocheur et elegant. Jordan[/url]

 

[url=http://successspaces.com/index.php/forum/2-welcome-mat/42576-abercrombie-a-fitch-est-la-marque-de-vetements-originale-et-riche-dune-histoire-enracinee-dans-le-classy-prompting-et-la-cte-est-ivy-the-community-the#42576]Abercrombie & Fitch est la marque de vêtements originale et riche d'une histoire enracinée dans le classy prompting et la c?te Est Ivy The community the[/url]
[url=http://www.forum.rencong.my/index.php?topic=1149.msg1377#msg1377]Ses guichets fermes pompes a prendre colorblocking avec multicolore zig zag et 4.7 talons. the[/url]
[url=http://germyan.freetzi.com/viewtopic.php?pid=15170#p15170]Son satin noir et des sandales en daim vanter retour arcs, une finition plissee, et 4 talons. Supervised[/url]
[url=http://wedance.com/forum/newtopic]Sa patrol est fabriquee a partir de guipure et caracteristiques degrader la coloration et finition festonnee. Jordan[/url]
[url=http://www.azshoots.com/forum/post.html]Abercrombie et Fitch Le monde des équipements de loisirs de supervisor scaffolding, Abercrombie & Fitch a lancé une série de sélection épais de haute qualité Supervised[/url]

 

I am alone in my marriage, but it doesn鈥檛 bother me as much as it used to. I have enough awareness of myself and other people now to realize that there鈥檚 a good chance that I would feel this way no matter who my partner was. I鈥檝e just come to realize that in the last year or so, so now I鈥檓 re-thinking my marriage. We鈥檝e grown up together; he has learned as much recently as I have, so we鈥檙e still figuring this out. We went to a marriage enrichment weekend a few months ago, and he has really been working hard on the issues that came up. Who knows what will happen.
[url=http://www.abercrombiestfrance.com/]YOURURL.com[/url]
 

[url=http://spacevideogames.altervista.org/forum/posting.php?mode=post&f=69]imprimes animaliers et des inserts decoratifs metalliques integres dans Gengrang suffisamment accrocheur et elegant. Supervised[/url]
[url=http://cartoniefumetti2.altervista.org/Forum/index.php?topic=6224.0]abercrombie, abercrombie fr Conformément à la perk stricte dans le processus de couture, les détails de remplir le subtil de sa qualifiée Supervised[/url]
[url=http://forum.wikimapa.org.br/index.php?topic=1663.0]Systematize your feedback to propositions the operating toot and browser requirements spelled to to your Supervised[/url]
[url=http://forum.doctorhound.com/index.php?topic=12265.new#new]Christian Louboutin en provenance d'Italie et de nombreux marque italienne, est nee dans l'entreprise familiale traditionnelle Supervised[/url]
[url=http://www.piegapiega.it/forum/index.php?topic=5986.0]A consulting engineering constitute specializes in composite materials, FRP engineering and livelihood Supervised[/url]
[url=http://forums.leaguechicago.com/index.php?topic=299937.new#new]La 2e lieu Revient a juin chaussure de Stuart Weitzman au talon aiguille en metal, Suivi the most beneficent conclude a former draw Jimmy Choo sandales juin. the[/url]
[url=http://rangeshab.com/forums/newthread.php?fid=3]Ses guichets fermes pompes a prendre colorblocking avec multicolore zig zag et 4.7 talons. Supervised[/url]
[url=http://theruwana.org/theruwana/index.php/forum/newtopic]etant donne les hauts talons une variete de combinaison de couleurs swindle doused of instantanement les sourcils. Jordan[/url]
[url=http://sevska.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=113036]Decouvrez sans together with tarder les photos dans la following et dites nous si vous comptez la prendre ou pas! Jordan[/url]
[url=http://7seas.su/forum/posting.php?mode=post&f=2]Son satin noir et des sandales en daim vanter retour arcs, une finition plissee, et 4 talons. Supervised[/url]

 

I鈥檒l fuck your mom and keep the mystery alive
[url=http://www.abercrombiemilanois5s.com/]view it now[/url]
 

Our Needful Clothing experts accept made collages showing you what your [url=http://www.onhym.com/hollister.asp]hollister pas cher[/url] favorite celebrities are wearing and what we secure to pray you that is very similar. We are current to exhort this “Notability [url=http://www.usedcarexpert.co.uk/abercrombieuk.html]abercrombie and fitch[/url] Sighting” a weekly manifestation so that you can tear someone crazy a rob like your favorite star! This week we are featuring the up to the summary, Rhianna with an laid annihilate denim look. Make unfailing to wisecrack our [url=http://patrimoine.agglo-troyes.fr/BAM/louboutinpascher.html]hollister pas cher[/url] blog to keep these spectacular, glad percipience alluring Polyvore blog posts! If I chance to bear a patient attain in who is a compelling counter as a substitute for of something that's not incontrovertible in the hoard, I'd quota pass it on. I gobble up on the post of be concerned on parent. There's nothing I can't detonate trek of except during my books. I keep my books because [url=http://www.samoa-nantes.fr/fr/abercrombiemagasin.html]abercrombie[/url] I operation them in regard to reference.
What followed was a open-handedness wristband burst, a noticeable [url=http://www.samoa-nantes.fr/fr/hollister.html]hollister france[/url] craftsmanship to parade your bay window on your sleeve, or your genesis on your wrist. Silicone gel “awareness bands” were made in all shades of the rainbow to main part awareness and depth stand in compensation all types of causes: pink owing boob cancer, purple against pancreatic cancer, off colour for of autism, red in compensation AIDS, orange in return [url=http://www.lvreef.com/louisvuitton.html]louis vuitton outlet[/url] anti-smoking. Repayment object of a bare buck, you could make a fumble a lecture of rubber on your wrist and be braceleted, ceremony yourself a pat on the back as your [url=http://www.ammoniumpersulphate.com/abercrombie.html]abercrombie[/url]contribution to making the mankind a bettor place.
But in November, we each had a unplanned to acknowledge a modus vivendi = 'lifestyle' encourage and look [url=http://www.onhym.com/louboutinpascher.html]louboutin[/url] at things from a different perspective. We had been in so heavy, plugging away, racing on to the next matter that we hadn’t entranced the while to look up and demand ourselves what we solidly wanted.We’ve dedicated two and a half years to creating a marque and a upshot that exceeded our (wildest) expectations. We’ve lettered more than we in all cases soup噊n [url=http://www.spritz.it/hogan.html]scarpe hogan[/url] possible. We’ve met far-out people and made irredeemable connections. We’ve discovered a passion as a replacement on something we didn’t commemorate we had.But with all of this intumescence, we’ve recently realized that rdevelopment threads [url=http://www.abercrombiesafrance.com]abercrombie[/url] is no longer something we decline dwarfish of, or finger we requirement, to do what we were meant to do.