Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Izzy wrote me about this test to see if you are smarter than Obama.  I think he's pretty incredibly smart, right.  Then she said it was an IQ test - and Obama's is 130.  We were both like, man, that's disappointing.

We REALLY want a leader that is smarter than us, for once!

I'm not bragging, mind you.  I'm not a genius.  :(


"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody likes a clever clogs.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"clogs?"  Is that British or Finnish?  I speak neither.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]


notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]


"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We don't say "niemand houdt van een slimme klomp"

Obama, OTOH, is rumoured to have Dutch roots. More specifically, Frisian roots. The local tabloid (IOW: the largest daily by circulation) just ran a made-up story on this that has been doing the rounds since February. From back then:

56572: Ús Barack foar President!

The gentleman on the left [now: above] is Mr. Jelle Obbema, a Frisian, who around left 1870 left Friesland for Kenya where he made a small fortune in the peppermint oil business. He was one of the founders of the famous Frisian King Peppermint company.

While in Kenya, de Volkskrant writes, Mr. Obbema had many love affairs. Offspring of these affairs were given the name Obama, the African version of the Frisian name Obbema. One of the sons was Sjoerd-Bark Obama, Barack Obama's great-grandfather.

Many Obbemas in Friesland have been famous for their athletic abilities. Finally, there is an Obbema Family Crest and on the crest are the words "Ja, wy kinne - Yes we can." The campaign slogan making the rounds in Friesland these days is: "Ús Barack foar President!"


Estimated truth value: 5% (the Obbema family does exist).
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Today, we are all Obamas.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seriously.  You see this?  We finally elect a president with an IQ above 6, and these schmucks try to claim him immediately.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She's from Chicago.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:07:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not part of Yurp either, unless you want credit for Daley.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think he's arguing I have legitimate claim to being an Obama because I live in Chicago.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you go back far enough, we're all related. As discussed in the old Heritage thread.

This is more than just a trivial notion, brothers and sisters!

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:39:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True enough. But then, we have Balkenende. Can you blame us?

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the end of Balls?

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ich bin ein Obama!

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I am an Obama donut"?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I am an Obama nut"

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither.  It's Sven.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Nov 11th, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clogs are shoes. Surely you must be interested? ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:46:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"We REALLY want a leader that is smarter than us, for once!"

Facebook:


There is no standard scale for measuring IQ so different tests give different scores. What is always comparable is if you are in, for example, the top 5% on this test you will probably also be in the top 5% on another test. This test uses one of the most common scales, but UK Mensa tests and many other tests use different scales.

CF.:


Think you are smart? Well, if your IQ is 130, that puts you ahead of 98% of people.

http://www.increasebrainpower.com/iq-scale.html


I.e. Mensa level.


 Of course that means there are still 120 million people who are smarter than you (the other 2%). Also, recent research shows that a person's level of self-discipline is more predictive of success than their IQ level. In other words, don't take too much meaning from your score on an IQ scale.

Ibid.

I'd say that Obama has shown that he has a lot of self-discipline.

Years ago Liam Hudson did a lot of work on IQ, creativity, etc. (Checking this I was sad to find he died in 2005). He said that a certain minimal level of IQ was necessary for outstanding performance in many fields, less so in the arts and humanities - I think he said about 120, than the sciences. But that very high IQ was no guarantee of success as, above the minimal level, other personal factors became more important, such as self-discipline (see above).  

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 07:50:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that IQ tests don't measure social or emotional intelligence which are THE most important predictors of success in a politician.

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 07:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that IQ tests mostly measure your ability to perform well on IQ tests. Which is at least somewhat correlated with practising these tests.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or that they generally rely on the sort of pointless puzzle solving that makes me want to stick the pencil through my eye, which I'm pretty certain doesn't help performance.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nor do they improve understanding of statistics : IQ tests are calibrated for the US usually, for the OECD at most, so the idea that "the top 2%" would be uniform around the world, leading to "120 million smarter people", would be shaky at best.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:11:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Any tests I have seen (a long time ago) were also quite culturally specific (which comes in handy if you want to prove e.g. that blacks have lower IQs than whites).  At best they are a highly reductive test for very specific capabilities, some of which can be learned/conditioned, and many of which aren't much used in most real life situations.

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:17:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's more they're a very limited test of a very specific and narrow range of rather abstract abilities.

Being able to rotate complicated objects in your imagination is more of a freaky talent than a useful one.

Psychologists use a more general concept called 'g', which is short for 'general intelligence' and seems to be almost impossible to test for.

I have a very arbitrary rule of thumb for estimating practical intelligence, which is predictive ability and modelling sophistication.

Given a set of circumstances - which could be emotional, or economic, or scientific - intelligent people are better at guessing what happens next than less intelligent people, even with identical levels of previous experience and knowledge.

Traditional IQ seems to be more interested in abstract symbol manipulations and certain kinds of pattern recognition, and they don't necessarily correlate with prediction and modelling except in very specialised and limited ways.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention that IQ tests mostly measure your ability to perform well on IQ tests. Which is at least somewhat correlated with practising these tests.
by someone

 There is a bit more to be said for them than you suggest here (which doesn't mean to say that I'm a hard-line advocate of IQ tests). I seem to recall reading that some research had shown that there was little gain after about three practice sessions - maybe there's some more recent research. In general, cf. a crtic of them:


Harvard professor and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that intelligence tests were based on faulty assumptions and showed their history of being used as the basis for scientific racism, although did not at any point attempt to scientifically refute intelligence tests.
...

Gould did not dispute the stability of test scores, nor the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement. He did argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on these test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views

I think most people would agree with the latter point, including those advocating IQ tests.

Cf.:


In response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a task force in 1995 to write a consensus statement on the state of intelligence research which could be used by all sides as a basis for discussion.
...
In this paper the representatives of the association regret that IQ-related works are frequently written with a view to their political consequences
...

The task force concluded that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics and that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence.

ibid.



Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a critique of IQ and Intelligence studies (sic) read The Making of Intelligence by Prof. Ken Richardson, Col U Pr, ISBN 0-231-12004-4.  It's a quick read and, to my mind, devastating.

The following is me.

Putting it bluntly:

  1.  the IQ people's research methods are shoddy.  There are no statistically valid, long-term, double-bind studies.  

  2.  there is no generally accepted definition of Intelligence

  3.  The highest IQ [See 1, above] does not help if you're dead, by the age of five, from starvation.  Thus, we see the influence of the particular environment.  Once environment is given a role the whole notion of "innate" or "genetically based" Intelligence [See 2, above] as a predictor is meaningless.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 12:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is this the best place for a nature v. nurture debate?  If so, can we move on to angels and pinheads when you are finished?  

There are intelligent people; there are unintelligent people.  There are beautiful people; there are ugly people.  There are ambitious people; there are unambitious people.  How did they get that way?  The possibile exlanations and combinations of explanations are infinite.  All methods for measuring these charateristics are subjective.  And what is intelligence or beauty?  Are they totally subjective?  But then why is it clear to most people that Obama is intelligent and Bush is not?  We must agree on some basic qualifications, right?  

And surely we can all agree that a President should be intelligent.

Also - I test miserably.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just thought I'd suggest that Obama's 130 score was more than enough to provide the basis for outstanding real-life performance, given such qualities as self-discipline, etc. - and look what happened ! Some would accuse me of trying to "hijack" the diary :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 12:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Putting it bluntly [mistakenly :-)]:

   1.  the IQ people's research methods are shoddy.  There are no statistically valid, long-term, double-bind studies.

 There is more than one valid way of doing studies and those developing IQ tests have used a variety of approaches. So there is debate in an area of studies about people - what a surprise!  


  2.  there is no generally accepted definition of Intelligence

So what ? We recognise many things without being able to give a precise definition of them.  Define "games".  Those developing IQ tests have put forward definitions which are as reasonable as most definitions in the social sciences.

   3.  The highest IQ [See 1, above] does not help if you're dead, by the age of five, from starvation.  Thus, we see the influence of the particular environment.  Once environment is given a role the whole notion of "innate" or "genetically based" Intelligence [See 2, above] as a predictor is meaningless.

This is just silly. Does any serious IQ proponent deny that the environment plays an important role ?

cf.


The task force concluded that IQ scores do have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement. They confirm the predictive validity of IQ for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled. They agree that individual differences in intelligence are substantially influenced by genetics and that both genes and environment, in complex interplay, are essential to the development of intellectual competence.

Now, if you have any serious criticisms ... :-)


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In order your argument commits:

  1.  Non sequitur: failure to meet the objection.  Either give examples of double-blind experiments or demonstrate why double-blind experiments are not necessary.

  2.  Appeal to Common Practice: validity is not achieved from 'everybody doing it.'

  3.  Argument from Ignorance:  The answer is Yes.

  4.  Argument from Authority: There are just as many, as just as good, Authorities (one cited) who object.

My statements stand.

QED.

(You see?  I can play the academic game too  ;-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 10:59:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In order your argument commits:

   1.  Non sequitur: failure to meet the objection.  Either give examples of double-blind experiments or demonstrate why double-blind experiments are not necessary.

No, YOU were making the demand - it's up to you to show why that method, and no others, is necessary, and why other methods are inadequate, taking into account the complexity of the subject being investigated - we're not talking about testing a specific drug for example.

   2.  Appeal to Common Practice: validity is not achieved from 'everybody doing it.'

Another unreasonable demand, it's up to you to show why a universally agreed definition is necessary - unlikely in the social sciences, and why the usual definitions offered are (supposedly) clearly inadequate.


   3.  Argument from Ignorance:  The answer is Yes.

Again you're making the accusation, and mere assertion won't do, back it up with credible examples - which serious IQ researchers say this - and are they at all typical, or an unrepresentative minority? See the conclusion to the review of Richardson below.


   4.  Argument from Authority: There are just as many, as just as good, Authorities (one cited) who object.

Mere assertion, previously I cited a major critic, Gould, but showed that he conceded some key points, and I quoted from a report by the American Psychological Society, not just one guy, and they affirmed the key points Gould conceded.

Now let's look at your (one) guy, from whom you cite no evidence or arguments. He seems to be as careless with evidence as you, and like you, he argues against straw men - cf the concluding sarcastic comment:


The Making of Intelligence
By K. Richardson. Columbia University Press, New York, 2000.

Review snippets on the cover of my copy describe this book as a "whodunnit", a "quietly passionate polemic", and a "thought-provoking view". In what follows, I can only belabor what one reads between those lines: the frustrating absence of a balanced, scholarly treatment of intelligence.
...
Opposed to any hint of genetic determinism, he has no choice but to reject computational approaches to the field. He does this by citing critiques published in 1990 or earlier; connectionism, the main approach in use today, was developed in the mid-1980s. If you see no changes in your software since 1989, he may convince you. The one exception is his citation of Geoffrey Hinton (p. 99): "As one of the leaders in the field, Geoffrey Hinton of Carnegie-Mellon University, put it in an article in 1998: `I am disappointed that we still haven't got a clue what learning algorithms the brain uses.'" Though Richardson ends his paragraph with that quotation, he is truncating Hinton, who in the source goes on to say, "but let me say one more encouraging thing"; this is followed by a lengthy, enthusiastic discussion of a promising new approach. For Richardson, because connectionists have had nearly 20 years to figure out how the brain works, and haven't, it's time to give up (p. 100). Unfortunately, all Richardson offers as an alternative is a set of metaphors based on "hypernetworks" and the conclusion that intelligence is a terribly complex emergent property. He eventually may prove to be correct, but it is a bit early to concede.

His writing is clear enough, but the treatment of sources is fuzzy beyond belief. Studies are mentioned with or without citation, and if an author is identified, the work in question may or may not show up in the short, briefly annotated chapter bibliographies. Oddly, given that a number of works don't make it to the bibliography, at least three are included in two or more. One has the impression of chapters written rapidly, perhaps out of sequence, with remembered publications cited and no effort made to track down the rest.

In sum, if you believe that "intelligence" is clearly defined, can be accurately and unambiguously measured using standard techniques, and derives from explicit, invariant mental modules that are rigidly specified by structural genes impervious to environmental effects, then read this book; it will give you a much-needed jolt. Otherwise, Gould (1996) remains definitive regarding the policy side of IQ testing, and Elman et al. (1996) provides a far better account of how complex behaviors can arise through epigenesis.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/6/462

My statements stand.

They're not even leaning drunkenly :-)


QED.

(You see?  I can play the academic game too  ;-)

and lose :-) - and by the way - how would you know ? unless you have a universally accepted definition of "academic" and "game" ? :-)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 05:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention there is no standard definition of intelligence.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 11:48:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well they are the sort of thing included in "other personal factors".

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 09:16:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I should have included, to be clear what it's a response to (given how far down this appears):

Not to mention that IQ tests don't measure social or emotional intelligence which are THE most important predictors of success in a politician.

by Frank Schnittger

Well they are the sort of thing included in "other personal factors" in my comment.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 09:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A high IQ is certainly no indicator of success, or self-discipline, as my existence has illustrated, time and again.

However, since I have neither success nor self-discipline, why do you feel the need to destroy what little pride I take in my IQ?  To quote the great Mayor Richard M. Daley, "What do you want, my shorts?!"  Bully...

I guess it is good to have a President who is extremely smart, but not a genius, as geniuses tend to be neurotic basket cases with no social skills.  

Back to the IQ.  I do wonder what the av. IQ on ET is.  I bet I am on the lower end here.  

Also, why is it ok for people to flaunt their wealth, beauty and power, but not their intelligence?  Maybe it is not such an issue in Europe, but until a week ago, being smart was considered elitism, something one should be ashamed of, here.  Intellectual people are in the closet in the country.  Only allowed to be cerebral in company of others like themselves.  I think smart people should show off.  Supermodels don't think, "I should only wear sweatpants and oversize t-shirts in public, so other people don't feel inferior to me."  Wealthy people don't live in trailer parks out of tact.  No, they flaunt it, making everyone else aspire to be like them.  Intelligent people should flaunt it too, and maybe people will begin to desire to emulate them.  Make it cool to watch Nova and read books.  Maybe Obama will do that.

Here's a fun read:

Mark Ames: Elite versus Elitny

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This problem in the US was discussed in Hofstadter's "Anti-intllectualism in American life" back in the 60s. Since then the Republicans have used the "elitism" theme to attack liberals in general - while giving massive funding to right-wing think tanks (see Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal")

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It runs far deeper than politics.  I had friends in elementary school who would pretend to be less intelligent than they were, would fail tests on purpose, for fear of ridicule.

Actually, the person I am thinking of grew up in Holland before moving to the States as a kid.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But if you have powerful political forces pushing an ideology they help shape the culture in general. The political becomes the personal - as in the cases you refer to.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced it is entirely top-down.  In a Democracy, you can try to impose ideology from the top, but you also have to pander to the ideology of the bottom.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 01:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But where did THAT ideology come from ? Hofstadter tried to trace the origins of the anti-intellectualism which existed then - actually the 1950s - and (as I've noted before) locates the roots of the ideology before the establishment of the US in Puritanism. But then examines its development and the ways in which it became deeply rooted in American culture:

In his unsurpassed survey, Hofstadter described three pillars of anti-intellectualism -- evangelical religion, practical-minded business, and the populist political style. Religion was suspicious of modern relativism, business of regulatory expertise, populism of claims that specialized knowledge had its privileges. Those pillars stand. But, as Hofstadter recognized, something was changing in American life, and that was the uneasy apotheosis of technical intellect.
...

The force of Hofstadter's insight into persistent anti-intellectualism despite the rising legitimacy of technical experts would be clear five years after he published his book. George Wallace ran well in several Democratic Party primaries, and eventually, too, as a third-party candidate, while campaigning against "pointy-headed bureaucrats" -- precisely the classic identification of intellect with arbitrary power that Hofstadter had identified as the populist hallmark.

There was a left-wing version of this presupposition, too. A populist strain in the 60's student movement, identifying with the oppressed sharecroppers of the Mississippi Delta and the dispossessed miners of Appalachia, bent the principle "Let the people decide" into a suspicion of all those who were ostensibly knowledgeable. Under pressure of the Vietnam War, the steel-rimmed technocrat Robert S. McNamara came to personify the steel-trap mind untethered by insight, and countercultural currents came to disdain reason as a mask for imperial arrogance.

In his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966, Ronald Reagan deployed a classic anti-intellectual theme -- portraying students as riotous decadents. Real education was essentially a matter of training, and breaches of discipline resulted in nihilism and softness on communism. The Nixon-Agnew team proceeded to mobilize resentment against "nattering na-bobs of negativism," successfully mobilizing a "silent majority" against a verbose minority. That was to flower into a major neoconservative theme thereafter.

http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i15/15b00701.htm




Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series