Post Election Day CIDU

Cidu Bill on Nov 8th 2012


Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Election Day, comic strips, comics, humor, xkcd | 49 responses so far

49 Responses to “Post Election Day CIDU”

  1. Mike Nov 8th 2012 at 01:36 am 1

    One of the stories of this election was that a number of people, most notably Nate Silver, now blogging at the NYT, were trying to combine all the various polls into an estimate/prediction model of the race. Most of those models have been predicting Obama as the winner for months. A lot of people on the right, not liking what they were hearing, started attacking Silver in recent weeks in pretty nasty ways (google it for details). Of course last night it turned out that the pollsters, Silver, and others who were doing math had a much better idea of who was going to get more votes than the anti-math partisan pundits.

  2. caribou Nov 8th 2012 at 02:09 am 2

    A definite LOL for me, even from the width of the Pacific away from the US election. Also liked the the alt text:
    As of this writing, the only thing that’s ‘razor-thin’ or ‘too close to call’ is the gap between the consensus poll forecast and the result.

  3. James Pollock Nov 8th 2012 at 03:42 am 3

    Just a variation on the “reality is persistent” theme. You can choose to believe or not believe what has happened, what is happening, or what will happen based on the perceived credibility of the source. However, this will not affect what actually happened, is happening, or will happen. Thus, regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, the climate will keep changing. Whether you believe in evolution or not, species will continue to evolve. And regardless of who you most fervently wish will win an election, the person with the most votes is the one who gets the job.
    (spoken as someone who refuses to participate in polls, and puts no faith of any kind in polling.)

  4. mitch4 Nov 8th 2012 at 03:58 am 4

    Yes, all the anti-Silver grumbling comes across as pretty purely envy.

  5. yellojkt Nov 8th 2012 at 06:41 am 5

    Not really as much envy as an unwillingness to accept reality.

  6. Tom T. Nov 8th 2012 at 08:20 am 6

    Remember too that this sort of criticism always comes from the side that happens to be losing. If you read the comments to 538 in the runup to the 2010 elections, it was Democrats who were going after him for predicting a big Republican wave in the House 9 (which, ironically, he underestimated).

  7. AMC Nov 8th 2012 at 08:22 am 7

    Here is one of the many articles on the pundits vs. the number crunchers in this election.–u-s-election-math-triumphs-over-pundits-in-revenge-of-nerds

    The number crunchers kicked butt in this election - all the claims of “bias” in the polls turned out to be false. There were claims by Romney supporters about landlines vs. cell phones, that late deciders would break for Mitt - a whole host of reasons given by long time political professionals why the polls should be ignored and their “instincts” respected.

    The GOP does a lot of magical thinking on subjects involving science and math, and creates story lines to compete with reality. It is really annoying to scientists and mathematicians. Fortunately for them, that’s a pretty small part of the electorate. Unfortunately, when the rubber hits the road, wishful thinking doesn’t change reality.

  8. Blinky the Wonder Wombat Nov 8th 2012 at 09:18 am 8

    How much of the ignorance of the polls can also attributed to the media? It certainly had the most to gain from a close, nail-biter of a race. Nobody watches the returns when there is no doubt about who will be the winner. It was laughable watching the pundits trying to fill air time trying to spin the numbers in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida to show that it COULD be possible for Romney to carry those states when everyone knew the trends indicated otherwise.

  9. AMC Nov 8th 2012 at 10:01 am 9

    Election night can be a fun dynamic - the networks want to keep the suspense going to preserve their audience, but the also want to be the first to correctly call the results.

  10. JHGRedekop Nov 8th 2012 at 10:02 am 10

    The “best” (as in most amusing) criticism of Nate Silver’s methodology I came across was one that insisted his model *must* be biased, because Silver is thin and effeminate.

  11. Mark M Nov 8th 2012 at 10:14 am 11

    So the GOP (or whoever the predicted loser is) should just fold up their tent and say “It’s over” because a blogger used math?

  12. Elyrest Nov 8th 2012 at 10:18 am 12

    I don’t watch the election night results, but my sister does. She was trying to tell me Obama was losing. I tried telling her that interpreting 5% of the vote in and states going to Romney that everyone knew would go to Romney wasn’t losing.

  13. JHGRedekop Nov 8th 2012 at 10:35 am 13

    @Mark M: No, but they shouldn’t respond with nothing more substantive than “Silver’s a fairy! Romney’s going to win with 370 electoral seats!”

    If a blogger (who happens to also be a skilled statistician with a proven record) is saying you’re likely to lose key states, you might actually want to re-evaluate your strategy in those key states and adjust accordingly instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “La la la!”

  14. padraig Nov 8th 2012 at 11:07 am 14

    I think it’s just one more nerdy attempt to make the general public statistics-literate. Keep tiltin’ at them windmills, xkcd!

  15. Mark M Nov 8th 2012 at 11:34 am 15

    JHDRedekop - agree on the name calling, but I’m pretty sure candidates on both sides have a good staff of advisors. I live in a state that was pretty well decided months ago. Hence I didn’t see one political ad for president.

  16. Judge Mental Nov 8th 2012 at 01:06 pm 16

    Not sure I understand the vitriol against those that deemed this case “too close too call”. I am a huge “numbers guy” and familiar with Nate Silver’s work dating back over 10 years ago to his ground-breaking PECOTA projections in baseball, but what harm was really done by those that doubted the numbers? I think people are less likely to vote if they think it is a foregone conclusion, so in this case, I ultimately think any misinformation about this being a tight race was ultimately a good thing.

  17. Winter Wallaby Nov 8th 2012 at 01:21 pm 17

    Judge Mental #16: I would prefer that people not lie to me even if they think that it produces good results.

    It’s understandable that the GOP (or whichever party is losing) would want to lie about reality, because they believe that being perceived as a likely loser makes you more likely to lose. But the media should hire analysts who actually tell you about reality, not pundits who just make stuff up.

  18. AMC Nov 8th 2012 at 02:04 pm 18

    Exhibit A: Karl Rove in the Fox News room after Ohio was called.

    The funniest thing in television election coverage EVAH.

    How delusional do you have to be to have a Fox News anchor ask you:

    “Is this just math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”

  19. minor annoyance Nov 8th 2012 at 03:01 pm 19

    The media has been brow-beaten into acting as if favoring facts is Biased. Thus we get psychics and quack doctors treated as if they had the same credibility as actual scientists and doctors who offer measurable proofs. And, of course, their political equivalents.

    Think it was Colbert who decreed, “Reality has a liberal bias.”

  20. Judge Mental Nov 8th 2012 at 03:48 pm 20

    I typically stay out of any political discussions and probably should have kept my self-imposed exile in this case.

    Once again, I don’t really understand the motivation for anyone in the media to “lie” about such a thing. Pick any topic in the world and you will find someone willing to lie about it, but typically there is some perceived benefit to doing so. Lying to besmirch someone’s character is reprehensible, but I understand the political gain of such comments. I just can’t grasp what possibly could be the benefit of lying in this case if you know you are going to be proven wrong in less than 24 hours.

    Sure, there are probably some pundits whose right-wing leanings made it tough for them to accept that the writing was on the wall, but I don’t think anybody really went into this saying “I am going to trick some people into thinking that Mitt Romney has a chance (maniacal laugh). The next day I will seem clueless, but it will totally be worth it”.

  21. Winter Wallaby Nov 8th 2012 at 04:14 pm 21

    Judge Mental: I misunderstood your comment at #16 about “misinformation,” I thought you were saying that the misinformation was intentional (aka a lie), and that this was a good thing.

    There are several reasons for people in the media to lie. First, and I suspect most significantly, a close race gets people to watch news much more than a foregone conclusion. If a race is a nail-biter, viewers on both sides keep checking the news on the days leading up to the election, and stay up late on election night. Second, as minor annoyance said, the media often doesn’t want to present facts as facts, when doing so would get them accused of bias. So you get nonsense like “Candidate A says that gravity attracts things to the Earth, Candidate B says that it doesn’t. We won’t comment on which is true, but representatives from both campaigns will be on to say what they thing.” Saying that one side is well ahead gets them accused of bias by the other side. Third, I do think that right-wing pundits did go into this saying “I am going to trick some people into thinking that Mitt Romney has a chance” (not sure about whether they then laughed maniacally), and I’m not sure why you’re skeptical about this - many pundits are essentially propagandists for one side, not objective analysts.

    Incidentally, I would view all of these reasons as essentially politically symmetric. If the numbers had shown Romney to be well ahead, I’d expect all the same things to happen, except replaing right-wing with left-wing in the third reason.

  22. Mark in Boston Nov 8th 2012 at 08:29 pm 22

    And in sports, here’s sportscaster Rick Smith who says the Giants won against the Steelers last night, and Fred Jones who says the Giants lost to the Steelers last night, coming up on Fox, your Fair And Balanced Sports Source.

  23. Brian Nov 8th 2012 at 10:36 pm 23

    JHGRedekop - Silverman noted that the campaign people themselves were a lot more reality based than the pundits and actually do adjust their strategies based on the polls and other information.

  24. JHGRedekop Nov 8th 2012 at 10:41 pm 24

    Though this CBS article says that Romney’s people were “shellshocked”, and had projected an easy win:

    “[T]hey believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn’t reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.

    “Those assumptions drove their campaign strategy: their internal polling showed them leading in key states, so they decided to make a play for a broad victory: go to places like Pennsylvania while also playing it safe in the last two weeks.

    “Those assessments were wrong.”

    This points to something which has been common in the Republican party since at least George W. Bush’s administration: finding facts which fit the desired result has been more important than finding facts which match reality. WMDs, yellowcake, the dismissal of the “reality-based community”, etc, are all part of this same pattern. It feels to me like the result of putting too much faith in faith and providence.

  25. Pinny Nov 8th 2012 at 10:54 pm 25

    Re: James Pollack (#3)

    For the same money you could have written:
    …and whether you believe in God or not, He will continue to control the world.

    In other words, none of what you wrote is *necessarily* true. You BELIEVE they are true. If they are true, then they are true even if someone does not believe they are and if they are not true, then they are not true even if someone believes they are.

  26. Pinny Nov 8th 2012 at 10:56 pm 26

    Re my #25:

    Sorry James *Pollock* for misspelling your name. It was unintentional.

  27. fj Nov 8th 2012 at 11:21 pm 27

    One thing I liked about this XKCD is that it blasts pundits on both ends of the political spectrum. Jim Cramer of CNBC said that Obama would garner 440 electoral votes– in other words winning more states than he did in 2008. To me, that was as ludicrous as Karl Rove rabid ramblings (at least his 320+ electoral vote claim for Romney), Peggy Noonan’s naive nonsense, or Dick Morris’s massive miscalculations. Data may be flawed, and sampling methods may be less than perfect: that’s why we have error bars. However, it’s not going to be THAT flawed.

    Rove really lost credibility. He’s supposed to understand this stuff. I can kind of understand him thinking on Tuesday morning that Romney might outperform the polls, but by the time Ohio was called, it was pretty clear that polls were pretty much spot on. And when he had his little Ohio rant, it was clear that most of the Ohio vote that was outstanding was from Cleveland and Toledo: two places where Romney was going to fair poorly anyway, and where his “Jeep is moving jobs to China” ad had been positively blasted by both local papers (the Plain Dealer called it a “barefaced lie”).

  28. Mark M Nov 8th 2012 at 11:30 pm 28

    Well at least we can look forward to taxes increasing by a few thousand dollars and another recession. Yippee!

  29. James Pollock Nov 8th 2012 at 11:41 pm 29

    “whether you believe in God or not, He will continue to control the world… In other words, none of what you wrote is *necessarily* true. You BELIEVE they are true. ”

    I chose things that are observable to all observers who care to look. I readily concede that, if God prefers a different reality, all bets are off… however, at this time, it seems that He prefers His creation to run under consistent rules.

  30. The Vicar Nov 9th 2012 at 12:09 am 30

    @Mark M:

    More realistically: cuts to Social Security and Medicare, no major tax rises for the bottom 25% or so in order to keep the base from squawking too loudly, only infinitesimal increases for the top 10%, and the rest of us taking up any slack, no cuts to the military even though that’s what’s bankrupting us (in 2012, military and “security” spending was 63% of the discretionary budget), a war with Iran (yes, it’s coming), continued cuts to social services, more new and counterproductive drone bombing campaigns in more countries (Nigeria, here we come), more prosecutions of whistleblowers, and a few empty promises on wedge issues along the lines of “we’ll stop enforcing prejudice at the federal level, but we won’t actually help you” one on gay marriage.

    It would be amusing that Republicans think Obama is left-wing if it weren’t so tragic.

  31. Proginoskes Nov 10th 2012 at 02:24 am 31

    I was riding home on the bus tonight, and a woman said that Hurricane Sandy was the punishment for the northeast USA (”those abortion people”) voting for Obama.

    I pointed out that the hurricane hit *before* the election, and she said, “Well, God was warning them not to do it.”

    I told her that he had failed. That shut her up for a while.

  32. The Vicar Nov 10th 2012 at 07:24 pm 32

    Funny how all these natural disasters which fundies claim are sent to punish The Gays (or whatever) never actually seem to hit the places where the group in question is strongest — like the hurricane a few years back which threaded through Florida, hitting exclusively counties in which a majority of voters went for Bush.

    But then, if you believe Christian cosmology, god is fundamentally incompetent anyway: his creation went horribly fatally wrong within days thanks to a design flaw a child could foresee, his attempts to fix the problem by violence failed uniformly, and even direct nonviolent interference was botched so badly that at no time has a majority of the world been covered by it. So maybe he’s just too drunk to aim properly or something.

  33. Mark in Boston Nov 10th 2012 at 07:56 pm 33

    Vicar: Exactly. God set Adam and Eve up to fail.

    God loves hearing praises all the time. Constantly. His angels were doing it, but of course angels don’t have free will. God wanted a creature to sing praises to him entirely from free will. So he invented Man, and designed him with not only free will but a perverse streak, saying to himself “These people will love me so much they will obey me and sing praises to me all the time just because they want to, even though they have free will and even though they have the occasional desire to do bad things.” And he said “I’ll give them only one command and they will never disobey me because they will love me so much.”

    Of course he knew all along what would happen, because he is omniscient, but he did it anyway.

    And of course when they DID disobey him, he got all angry and flustered and sputtery, like Karl Rove, and lashed out at them for doing what he designed them to do and what he knew all along they would do.

  34. Top Nov 10th 2012 at 11:26 pm 34

    Professors Berry and Bickers predicted an overwhelming Romney win using their own prediction model. So number crunchers weren’t all right.

    Interestingly, they had to grace to analyze what went wrong with their prediction:,0,4036774.story

    though they disingenuously blame Sandy for skewing their predictions. It might salve their hurt egos, but I’m skeptical Sandy had any significant bearing on the election outcome.

  35. Top Nov 10th 2012 at 11:28 pm 35

    PS Berry and Bickers might have benefited from this other xkcd comic:

  36. Proginoskes Nov 11th 2012 at 03:38 am 36

    @ The Vicar: “like the hurricane a few years back which threaded through Florida, hitting exclusively counties in which a majority of voters went for Bush.” Nope. That’s an urban myth.

    “But then, if you believe Christian cosmology, god is fundamentally incompetent anyway.” Paul Erdos, the brilliant mathematician, always referred to God as “The Surpreme Fascist.”

    And an interesting side note. According to Christian dogma (not Scripture, AFAIK), God told all the angels to worship only him. Then God created Man, told the angels to worship Man, and then got mad at Lucifer when Lucifer wouldn’t worship Man. So Lucifer (Satan) went to Hell for following orders.

    As the Bible repeatedly says, you should fear God, not love God.

  37. Elyrest Nov 11th 2012 at 09:22 am 37

    Proginoskes - God sounds an awful lot like some of my bosses - and not in a good way.

  38. The Vicar Nov 11th 2012 at 11:04 pm 38

    @Mark in Boston:

    It’s worse than that; before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve didn’t even know the difference between good and evil, which means they had no idea that it would be evil not to follow instructions. If they don’t know what “wrong” is, how can they know that disobeying god is wrong? It’s like getting mad at a blind man because he can’t tell what color your shirt is. And that’s the root of all Christian theology; if you don’t admit that all humans were permanently tainted by the Fall of Man, then Jesus dying on the cross becomes just kind of pointless.

    Or, at least, even more pointless — we’re already talking about someone who insisted on having himself killed (well, okay, it didn’t stick, so I’m not sure you can really call it “killed”) in order to convince himself to stop worrying about a rule that he himself created and enforced. Any sensible being would have just forgiven people, but the Christian god has to make a big, bizarre song and dance about it and institute a ritual of mock-cannibalism, because that makes so much sense, too… really, the only reason we don’t notice the weird and stupid and crazy parts of Christianity is that we’re born in a culture where believing all that stuff is the norm.

  39. Winter Wallaby Nov 12th 2012 at 12:19 am 39

    Proginoskes #36:

    According to Christian dogma. . . God created Man, told the angels to worship Man, and then got mad at Lucifer when Lucifer wouldn’t worship Man.

    I don’t believe this is in the dogma of any major mainstream Christian denomination. It is, however in the Quran.

  40. fj Nov 12th 2012 at 10:54 am 40

    Actually, Proginoskes’s Lucifer story appears to me to be a combination of an apocryphal Christian story about Lucifer refusing to bow to Jesus, and the Islamic story in which Iblis (the devil in Islam) refused to bow to Adam (out of pride, not because he had previously been told not to). To call it Christian dogma is wrong—it’s not even part of general Christian tradition. And it’s not really in the Quran, either, since Iblis is a jinn, not an angel.

    Even the Lucifer not bowing to Jesus story isn’t part of what could be correctly called Christian dogma.

    The “fear” and “love” comment is similarly flawed. Proginsoskes conflates the “to revere or respect” meaning of the word “fear” with the “to be afraid of” meaning. For example, the King James translation of the bible also says everyone should fear their parents (Leviticus 19:3, “You shall fear every man his mother, and his father…”). However, even ignoring this distortion, the claim that the bible does not command people to love God is patently false. Deuteronomy 6:5, just for starters, says “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” And there are at least a dozen more similar commands in the Old Testament (roughly the same as the number of times people are commanded to “fear” the Lord). In the New Testament, Jesus says that Deuteronomy 6:5 is the most important of all commandments.

    As far as the tree of knowledge of good and evil is concerned (The Vicar’s comments above), “good and evil” is generally regarded as a merism. It represents an understanding of a broad spectrum of both good and evil. In their innocence, Adam and Eve lacked complete knowledge of this spectrum. That does not necessarily mean they lacked any ability to differentiate between what is right and wrong. Algebra is necessary to understand calculus. Not knowing calculus does not imply that a person does not know algebra. Innocence does not require total ignorance.

  41. The Vicar Nov 12th 2012 at 02:05 pm 41


    So… they knew it was wrong, but didn’t know why wrong is wrong? Sounds like typical theological obscurantism to me. “Here’s a totally ridiculous statement made by a bunch of almost completely ignorant goat-herding nomads 3000 years ago. It makes almost no sense, even internally. Let’s tinker with word definitions and ignore the obvious text in an attempt to make it seem even remotely plausible.”

    And, for that matter, it still wouldn’t make god any less incompetent to have put the tree there in the first place.

  42. Mark in Boston Nov 12th 2012 at 08:24 pm 42

    And if the ONLY way God could redeem mankind was by sacrificing His own Son:

    Then there’s something bigger than God, that makes the Laws that God must obey.

  43. fj Nov 13th 2012 at 09:17 pm 43

    @The Vicar,
    First of all, let me apologize about a lack of clarity in my response above: I should have made it clear that when I said that “knowledge of good and evil” was best interpreted as a merism, I was speaking about the original Hebrew and NOT merely trying to make sense of the English.

    Translation is a tricky thing. You need to understand literal meanings, context, and idioms. Where else does this Hebrew phrase occur? In Deuteronomy 1:39, we learn that children do not yet have knowledge of good and evil. In 2 Samuel 19:35, an 80-year-old man wonders if he still can discern good and evil (and yes, the Hebrew root is the same as the sour root of “knowledge” in Genesis 2-3) . So whatever “knowledge of good and evil” is, it is something that both the young and the old can lack.

    Additional clarity on the usage of the term can be found in non-biblical ancient texts. For example, a document containing rules for the Qumran community (a non-biblical scroll that was found among the Dead Sea scroll) states that “He is fully twenty years of age when he knows good and evil” (as translated literally). In the context of the document, this is the age at which a man can marry, and be considered a full member of the community.

    Suggesting that a nineteen year old has no concept of good or evil, but that twenty-year-old has complete knowledge is ridiculou, but that’s what your “obvious” interpretation of “knowledge of good and evil” does when applied to this non-biblical ancient text. A variety of contexts support the concept that the phrase is an idiom that means a discerning, mature, and responsible understanding of a broad range of moral issues (or, some experts argue, an even broader general knowledge). It is a merism, like the English phrase “high and low” (meaning, “almost everywhere”). The idiomatic meaning is something more than the meaning of its literal parts. Your interpretation is wrong. It’s not wrong because it would be inconvenient for my understanding of Genesis (and by the way, I do not believe in biblical inerrancy, nor do I believe that Genesis should be read literally). It’s wrong because it contradicts sound scholarship done by people who understand ancient Hebrew.

    In closing, I’ll just add that in addition to the idiomatic use describe above, the root for “knowledge” is also a Hebrew euphemism for sexual intercourse. Some experts believe that there is a bit of double entendre going on in Genesis 2-3. I would tend to agree. After eating the fruit, Adam and Eve became embarrassed by their sexuality, but this had not been a problem before.

  44. fj Nov 13th 2012 at 09:23 pm 44

    That “sour root” should have been a “source root.”
    And “ridiculou” should read “ridiculous.”

  45. Winter Wallaby Nov 14th 2012 at 12:15 am 45

    fj, thanks for the info about translation, that’s quite interesting. As long as you’re explaining Genesis, one thing I’ve always wondered about. The standard Christian summary that I’ve always heard is that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Even as punishment for eating the forbidden fruit. But when I read the text (any English translation), the obvious reading seems to be that they were punished with the pains of agriculture and childbirth, and that God’s motivation for kicking them out of the garden is actually fear that they will gain eternal life by eating from the tree of Life.

    (BTW, to be picky, I never claimed that the Quran said that Iblis was an angel.)

  46. Winter Wallaby Nov 14th 2012 at 12:17 am 46

    Hit submit too quickly. Perhaps it’s obvious, but what I was wondering was if knowledge of Hebrew or other info gives an explanation for this apparent discrepancy between Christian dogma and the text.

  47. Arthur Nov 14th 2012 at 01:27 am 47

    I’m not a bible scholar, but I have read a few books about it aimed at the general public.
    What follows is my remembrance of what someone wrote:

    The first 5 books of the bible seem to have been written by at least two people (each), and
    then edited. In order to not displease anyone too much, nothing was left out. So, each of
    those books can be teased apart to make two somewhat-contradictory books. That’s why there
    are two reasons for kicking out Adam and Eve from the garden. It’s also why there’s two
    different accounts of how Eve came to be - created with Adam or from his rib. Similar things
    can be seen in all of those books.

  48. fj Nov 14th 2012 at 11:10 am 48

    @Winter Wallaby

    That’s an interesting question.

    You are, of course, correct that Genesis clearly says that Adam and Eve were banished from the garden to prevent them from having access to the tree of life.

    However, banishment from the garden is also implied in Adam’s curse: the ground from which he was made is cursed with thistles and thorns, and he must work it, suffer the pains of that labor, and eventually die and be returned to the ground. This ground is outside the garden, for Adam was created from this ground and then placed INTO the garden, and thorns and thistles don’t belong in Eden. Therefore, Adam has to leave the garden, and Eve must go with him.

    Access to the Tree of Life (which shows up metaphorically elsewhere in the bible: it soothes, heals, sustains, and offers eternal life) is incompatible with Adam and Eve’s punishment. So, not only must Adam and Eve leave the garden, they cannot be trusted to return to it. Therefore banishment is a natural consequence of– and (at least in Adam’s case) a prerequisite for– their punishment.

    So while, strictly speaking, Adam and Eve were not explictly kicked out of the garden as a punishment, it was a necessary part of the punishment that they were explicitly given. The standard summary is really a metaphor, meaning that Adam and Eve had to now live a life of pain and toil, as opposed to their previously painless and idyllic life. Viewed that way, I do not really see it as a discrepancy from the actual biblical text.

  49. Winter Wallaby Nov 14th 2012 at 02:51 pm 49

    Thanks, fj / Arthur, that makes sense.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply