Recursive Fury goes recurrent
|By Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol
Posted on 21 March 2014
Some 18 months ago I published a paper with colleagues Oberauer and Gignac that reported a survey of visitors to climate blogs which established a small, but significant, association between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of several scientific propositions, including the fact that the earth is warming from greenhouse gases. The effects reported in that paper have since been replicated with a representative sample of Americans. No scholarly critique of either paper has been submitted for peer review to any journal to date.
Publication of the first paper (now known as LOG12) engendered a sustained and ongoing attack on the research and my work in general. Most of these attacks have been pursued by defamation on the internet, but they have also involved activities beneath the surface hidden from public view. I have already written about this Subterranean War on Science.
The strategies employed in those attacks follow a common playbook, regardless of which scientific proposition is being denied and regardless of who the targeted scientists are: There is cyber-bullying and public abuse by “trolling” (which recent research has linked to sadism); there is harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests; there are the complaints to academic institutions; legal threats; and perhaps most troubling, there is the intimidation of journal editors and publishers who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient.
Together with colleagues Cook, Oberauer, and Marriott, I also published another paper last year, entitled Recursive Fury, in the online Journal Frontiers. This article reported a narrative analysis of the blogosphere’s response to publication of LOG12. The blogosphere’s response bore a striking resemblance to the very topic of LOG12: our finding that rejection of climate science is associated with conspiratorial thinking triggered elements of conspiratorial discourse among those who sought to deny that denial of climate science involves a measure of conspiratorial thinking:
Recursive Fury attracted some media attention (e.g., in the New York Times) as well as critique. It should come as little surprise that this critique did not involve a scholarly response, such as submission of a rejoinder for peer review, but that it entailed a barrage of complaints to the University of Western Australia (UWA), where I was based at the time, and the journal Frontiers.
While not retracting the paper, Frontiers removed the article from its website in March 2013. The journal then commenced an arduous process of investigation which has now come to a conclusion.
Frontiers will post (or has posted) the following statement on its website today:
“In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.”
In other words, the article is fine but Frontiers does not want to take the legal risk that its restoration on the website might entail.
This is not the first time that legal fears have led to the withdrawal of a paper.
The authors were involved in drafting the retraction statement and sanction its content: We understand the journal’s position even though we do not agree with it.
Until January 1st of this year, the U.K.—where I now reside and whose laws are therefore applicable—was the country made in heaven for people who wanted to use “defamation” as a tool to suppress inconvenient speech, to the point that President Obama recently signed a law to make U.K. libel judgments unenforceable in the U.S. That law (PUBLIC-LAW 111-223) explicitly cites the “ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work” as motivating reason for making foreign libel judgments unenforceable in the United States.
Richard Dawkins rightly noted some time ago that scientists in the U.K. were operating in "an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty" under the libel laws. The law has now been reformed and, since January 1st, it contains some protections for scientists, a point to which I may return in future posts.
As far as we can tell, Recursive Fury attracted more attention than any other paper in psychology ever published by Frontiers. It attracted 9,124 full text views, and the count of abstract views was 29,324 when we last checked (at which time the article that we identifies as runner-up had 12,086 abstract views and 1,091 full text views).
Given its popularity, and given that approximately 29,300 viewers did not complain about our work, it would be a shame to deprive the public of access to this article. Because the work was conducted in Australia, I consulted with the University of Western Australia’s chief lawyer, Kim Heitman, who replied as follows:
“I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.”
— Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia
So here, then, is Recursive Fury.
1 2 3 4 Next
Comments 1 to 50 out of 155:
I wrote to Frontiers about my concerns about ethical conduct and conflicts of interest and vested interest of the one or more of the authors. In particular, I requested my name to be removed from the paper's data set, Because one of the authors Marriott, (Watching the Deniers blog) had been writing over a dozen articles attacking the critics of LOG12 during the research period (ie not neutral as claimed) and more particularly, had personally attacked me, naming me (and others) on his blog Watching the Deniers.. and as such I said this compromised the paper.
I made the point,to UWA and Frontiers, as my name was merely in the data set, but not referenced in the main paper, the removal of my name should have no impact on the paper. and given the circumstances I thought this was a reasonable request.
I also said because of this it was also in Frontiers best interests to remove this paper for consideration, in light of these issues
I emailed Frontiers, links to Marriott's personal attacks about myself and Anthony Watts, labelling us deniers, disinformation, denial Industry, writing ‘Verified Bullshit’ and worst labelling us with a psychological defect Dunning-Kruger, and he had adulterated an WUWT graphic (my article) with a red rubber stamped ‘Verified Bullshit’
This article I found was was endorsed by Skeptical Science, and it transpires that Mariott was also a Skeptical Science insider (writing rebutalls)- John Cook the founder of Skeptical Science, also being an author on this paper.
I did write to UWA ethics department, asking for my name to be removed from the paper, in light of Marriot’s conduct, as initially a reasonable request not a complaint. It was only when a complaint seemed to be the only way forward, that I made it a complaint
(I also repeated it had no impact on the paper, and this should be a simple request for UWA/ and the lead author to fulfill, given the circumstances) but UWA found no problems with Marriott’s conduct, or the other issues I raised about the paper, which says a lot about UWA, I think
From the FOI request for ethics approval for this paper, the ethics secretary directed professor Lewandowsky to a UWA webpage.
The page contains a ‘risk assessment checklist’ to guide researchers to whether a planned study would need ethics approval. It has these questions:
1 Active concealment of information from participants and/or planned deception of participants
2 Will participants be quoted or be identifiable, either directly or indirectly, in reporting of the research?
3 Will data that can identify an individual (or be used to re-identify an individual) be obtained from databanks, databases, tissue banks or other similar data sources?
4 Might the research procedures cause participants psychological or emotional distress?
5 Does the research involve covert observation?
The answer is a ‘Yes’ to many of these questions. ’Participants’ declared to be conspiratorial by Lewandowsky are directly identified by name in the paper. The element of covert observation is undeniable.
so I do think ethics approval went a bit wrong with this paper.
I look forward to your article about this travesty in the Energy and Environment section of The Conversation.
@ Barry Woods
Interesting that you feel the need to out yourself as one of the McIntyre's co-conspirators against this academic publication (talk about ironic). From what I can tell, you seem to be one of Watt's lackeys. I haven't seen much from you besides your contributions[sic] to WUWT, though I tend not to waste much time researching shills. Feel free to correct me if you actually do more than add a voice to Mr. Watt's anti-science crusade(http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/15/426174/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-confirms-heartland-weather-stations-project/).
It is not libel to write on matters of public record. Tony Watts has been paid large sums of money by the Heartland Institute to promote it's oil sponsors anti-science agenda. You threw your hat in the ring with him, now you pay the public price for your ignorance. The intentionally contrarian opinions of the High school diploma holding Watts pale against the findings of rigorous scientific research. I can only assume you are similarly ill-equipped to talk about both science and ethics as your handler.
If you were, you would not have joined the oil man McIntyre in his publicised harassment mission against the authors of this paper (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/tweet-your-permission-for-lewandowsky-to-out-you/#comment-102420).
It is not covert observation to report on published material on the internet. You give up any presumed privacy once you publish your thoughts online. Most primary school children understand this, why can't you? It's of little consequence ethically if a publicly published individual can be identified from a research paper. If the individual did not want their ideas or idealogical slants open to public scrutiny, they should not have published them online.
But then, if not for frivolous harassment and baseless legal action, how would science deniers make any progress[sic]?
my concern as stated above, was not about privacy, but the ethics of a situation, where a researcher of a psychology paper was also publically attacking the very people he was researching, at the time of the research.
I had also interacted with that researcher at the time of the research in good faith on that very blog ( iahd not at that time seen the earlier derogatory article), and he as a psychology researcher 'deceived' me, by doing this research.. both situations are unethical.
ethics, NOT privacy, is the concern.
as for the rest of your comment, you seem to believe in 'big oil' conspiracy theories.
"This has been amply documented, by commentators on both sides of the climate debate, at the following links." -foxgoose
link#1)Geoff Chambers blog (concerted climate science denier)
link#2) McIntyre's blog (the one who started the harassment mission against this paper
link#3) ACM Anti-climate science
link#4) Yet another anti-climate science blog
Remind me again where the 'other' side is in there? Because you only linked to butt-hurt anti-science blogs.
You conflate the privacy of your public rantings as if it were an ethical issue. Tip: it isn't.
Conspiracies are usually covert; the oil industry makes little attempt to hide its funding of anti-science to preserve it's profits.
The paper did not attack individuals, and what the author does in his spare time is of no real ethical consequence to a scientific publication. Were the authors torturing graduate students in their labs, that would be unfortunate... but would have no ethical ramifications on previous publications on conspiracy ideation.
You were very quick to project your conspiracy ideation to me. Interesting, maybe I can publish a small paper on cognitive dissonance within denialist communities online.
Tip for the future: if you don't want the whole world to know you are crazy, then don't publish online. That includes comments, posts, and replies. Those are public record, and using them in research is not unethical regardless of your mistaken presumptions about whom you are conversing with.
NathanD - oil industry conspiracist ideation at its finest. Are you a "truther". Were you surveyed?
It's not conspiracy ideation if it's true.
Watts is paid by Heartland, Heartland is sponsored by big oil to push their agenda.
That's not conspiracy ideation, it's a matter of public record.
Although the link to the pdf for "recursive fury" follows a quote from the legal representative at UAW, I noticed the link to the .pdf for recursive fury is hosted on sks.to (http://sks.to/recursivefury) not the University of Western Australia. Is a live link to the pdf of the recursive fury manuscript still available at UWA ? If not, why not? Thanks.
NathanD - Profs Richard Betts and Judith Curry also get a guernsey as not following the party line in some of Prof Lewandowsky's peer reviewed climate science research publications.
Does the UK Met Office and the Georgia Institute of Technology know they are be being funded by big oil? If not, you should write and inform these institutions immediately.
We don't have a lot of oil in Australia so I imagine Jo Nova is being funded by big coal or big gas. Not that I'm a conspiracy ideationalist of course.
Eli would simply suggest that all those who downloaded a copy of the paper at Frontiers return it to them in order to satisfy their legal reticence. An appropriate Email address would be firstname.lastname@example.org and the copy can be attached.
Of course, it may be downloaded at UWA in a perfectly accepted copy.
Just as another blog post on a Uni website then Dr Halpern. Not one to put on the CV as an accredited and published peer reviewed journal paper.
Never mind. Life wasn't meant to be easy as an Australian Prime Minister once said.
lucia - you could have checked the http://sks.to/recursivefury link.
It simply redirects to http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf where the pdf is hosted
Thanks. When I click, the paper just appear to download.
The redirect is an odd arrangement. Why not just link to UWA directly instead of through the 3rd party site? (Ok.. why ask why? Obviously one can do what one wishes.)
Who's talking about Curry and Betts? Curry actually is a real scientist with relevant expertise... she also is also among the 'wrongest' scientists in climate science. Its not that she herself is a bad person, or even a bad scientists probably; its just that her falsifiable hypotheses have been falsified... Though you wouldn't guess that when listening to her non-scientific opinions.
Dr. Betts is not a scientist, his degrees are in liberal arts.
Just because Curry doesn't receive as much oil money as Watts, does not negate the public record of him taking money from the Heartland institute to push the agenda of the Heartlands sponsors.
Whoever you are - you are a fool.
Richard Betts is Head of Climate Impacts at the UK Met Office.
His degrees are in physics, meteorology and applied climatology.
Suggest you learn something about the climate debated before beclowning yourself further.
Richard A. Betts is a mainstream climate scientist who has countered denialists ad nauseam. He is also NOT a professor, as the OP originally was referring to. He is a lead scientist at the U.K. Met office, but again, NOT a professor.
Grant was referring to "Profs Richard Betts and Judith Curry ", and since Richard A. Betts is not a professor, grant must have been referring to Richard K. Betts, who actually IS a professor (or else he is, as you say "a fool").
Professor Richard K. Betts is a Professor of war and peace studies at Columbia. Obviously I knew who he was referring to, but I decided to follow the OP's ignorance and reply based on his miscommunication.
Professor Richard Betts
Chair in Climate Impacts
Richard is Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter and Head of Climate Impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre. His undergraduate studies were in Physics at the University of Bristol, followed by an MSc in Meteorology and Climatology at the University of Birmingham. For his PhD, he used climate models to assess the role of the world’s ecosystems in global climate and climate change. He has worked in climate modelling since 1992, with a particular interest in the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and the interactions with other impacts of climate change such as on water resources.
Nathan - Grant is correct, you are wrong.
Grant was absolutely referring to the Professor Richard A Betts (not the other one you mention) of the Met Office and Geography university.
Richard A. Brett is not a full professor. There is actually a meaning behind that title in European universities. Last I checked Richard was Asc. Prof, not full professor. But thanks for wasting space and time for us.
I'm Prof Richard A. Betts from the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter. Yes, I am a full Professor - I'm Chair in Climate Impacts . This is on my University of Exeter home page, but I guess I really should get round to updating my Met Office one to say Prof not Dr!
Yes, the Met Office is funded by Big Oil. And Big Coal. And Big Nuclear. And Big Renewables. Basically we do applied for research for a very wide range of customers who need advice on weather and climate science. The energy & mining multinationals make very big, long-term investments (multi-decadal) and require risk assessments on those timescales, which includes advice on the range of projected regional climate conditions at the locations of their assets. It's a growing source of funding for climate research.
Prof Richard A Betts
Met Office Hadley Centre
University of Exeter
Thanks for the reply Richard. I am curious though, I don't suppose you think its a fair claim by Grant to put you on equal footing to the increasingly strident Dr. Curry?
Having the distinct pleasure of hearing Judith speak on climate more often than I care to remember, I can't honestly believe many in the atmospheric sciences would appreciate being grouped with her brand of hubris. But I can't speak for you, thoughts?
Trying to cover your stupidity by frantically Googling for another Prof Betts, who has absolutely nothing to do with the climate debate, simply confirms your clownishness.
Have you ever hear the old English maxim - "when caught in a hole - stop digging"?
I suggest you man up, admit your ignorance and offer an apology to Prof Betts promptly.
Your choice of course - we're enjoying laughing at you anyway.
the graphic and link (from Watching the Deniers blog - Marriott - co-author) shown in my first comment, were a few weeks before the 'research' period of the Recursive Fury paper..
here is another graphic, in the middle of the 'research' period by Marriott. Where Marriott is attacking Anthony Watts, who was later named as a 'source of ideation in the paper and the WUWT graphic shown, is adulterated by Marriott to say "Verified Bullshit" (the article in question is my authorship)
Marriot and Cook were brought in because they were supposedly independent of LOG12, yet Mariott was cheerleading Lewandowsky, and attacking LOG12 critics.
I don't care what was said by Marriott, the issue is that ethically, how can a researcher be seen to be publically attacking his research subjects, before after, or especially during the research period of the paper. (I am even interacting with him in the comments!)
Now that your Recursive Fury article is no longer a peer-reviewed article but a simple blog post you will presumably not be insisting that all criticisms must be peer-reviewed. We can address ourselves as equals now, as one blog owner to another, and you can reply to the criticisms of “Fury” which I made at
While some of my criticisms concern questions of interpretation, many point out simple factual errors, including mangled quotes, quotes being attributed to the wrong person, or attributed to the wrong aspect of conspiracy ideation. Yet neither you nor Frontiers saw fit to correct these errors or acknowledge them in any way. This is disappointing behaviour on the part of a supposedly reputable publisher. In what concerns Lewandowsky and his co-authors, I shall continue to make the same accusation that I have made here, at Retraction Watch, Scientific American, Huffington Post, the New Yorker, the Conversation, and anywhere else where the author continues to peddle this inept blog article.
Here, and in many other online fora, you have been repeatedly challenged to justify a serious untruth which appears in your original LOG 12 paper.
The paper claims that the survey on which it was based was posted on the website of your collaborators at Skeptical Science. This was the most visited blog surveyed in your paper and you specifically mentioned it and drew inferences from it in the paper.
It has now been confirmed by several sources, including an insider at the Skeptical Science site, that no link to your survey ever appeared there.
This has been drawn to your attention repeatedly and both you and John Cook, who runs the SkS website, have given various evasive or untrue responses.
You have refused to acknowledge this fundamental falsity in the LOG 12 paper and tried to cover your tracks by lying to those who have made enquiries.
Your refusal to acknowledge or correct the false claims in the paper, about your methodology and data, constitutes serious academic fraud and you must address it by revising or withdrawing the work.
May we now have a response from you on this?
It's a simple question - did the LOG 12 survey ever appear on the Skeptical Science site?
Your fans are waiting.
It seems even sardonics are lost on you.
You aren't equals. The paper wasn't retracted on merit, it was taken down for legal reasons. The validity and the rigour of the review process it passed and the lack of scientific rebuttal to it while it was up is testament to it's credulity.
One of you is a Ph.D psychologist.
The other a loud mouth on the internet.
NathanD, "I can't honestly believe many in the atmospheric sciences would appreciate being grouped with her brand of hubris"
That's ironic. She seems to be about reducing hubris and promoting hard science.
Funny, I have never gotten that impression from her. I am always left with the taste of a confrontational arrogance after reading her posts and listening to the contrarian talks I've heard from her.
I would love to see her publish something in the literature that actually supports what she claims online and in person though... I have a feeling I will have to wait quite a while for that though.
NathanD - thanks for your incredibly well researched posts. They find me in good humour and with a spring in my step as I head off to golf. Where the trees and traps are no doubt primed to conspire against me yet again.
I see conspiracy everywhere.
You are welcome to my humor anytime.
It boggles the mind how so many can warp basic science to the degree that they can't see the clear human influence on the Earth's GHE.
Enjoy your game, try not to join Judith's tribe, or fall into watt's oil pit.
lucia, it think sks.to is really just a link shortener domain like bit.ly, so really not much to worry about.
Professor Lewandowsky's paper did not meet the guidelines of social research. It did not protect the identities of respondents.
It also inappropriately used statistical techniques on cell sizes that were too small to permit such operations.
Nathan, in addition to your stupidity regarding Richard Betts, you falsely state that Anthony Watts is funded by Heartland. That is not true.
The whole controversy about this paper and its author is both the controversy in microcosm and a clear guideline to why communications about climate change is failing.
This comment will be viewed as coming from an opponent, someone who is a 'denier', when in fact I am not. I am a Lukewarmer. But the authors of this paper and the contributors to this site are so busy shooting themselves in the foot that they not must first not acknowledge the mess they are making, and then find somebody--anybody--else to accuse of making it.
Lewandowsky will bluster about cell sizes and appropriate statistical techniques and justify publishing our names (to which I have no objection. I'd be happy for him to quote me, if only he would get the quotes right and attribute them to the right person!) on the grounds that our comments are in the public domain.
What he can't deny is that the claim made in LOG12 (“Moon Hoax”) that the survey was publicised at SkepticalScience is false, and that he and SkS blog owner John Cook knew this in September 2012, six months before Moon Hoax was published. This matters, because co-author Cook went to the bother of analysing the percentage of SkS commenters who were sceptics in order to justify the use of all-warmist blogs as a source for sceptical respondents. This is tantamount to fraud, and the reason why the Moon Hoax paper must also be withdrawn.
Tom Fuller writes:
you falsely state that Anthony Watts is funded by Heartland. That is not true.
According to Heartland's own documents, it paid Anthony Watts $44k and was intending to pay him a further $44k. $88K is a large sum of money. It is "funding" by anybody's measure.
Can you acknowledge your error and correct it please, Tom?
Are we allowed to introduce documents obtained by "climate ethics superstar" Peter Gleick using proven and admitted theft, fraud and forgery?
I though the climachondriac community had strict rules about that sort of thing ;-)
Gleick was cleared, so you have just committed libel.
The genuine, not-forged document is the Heartland Institute 2012 Fundraising Plan pp19 - 20:
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who hosts WattsUpwithThat.com, one of the most popular and influential science blogs in the world, has documented that many of the temperature stations relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or paved surfaces. It is not uncommon for these stations to over-state temperatures by 3 or 4 degrees or more, enough to set spurious records.
Because of Watts’ past work exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that The Heartland Institute supported and promoted), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric administration (NOAA), the government agency responsible for maintaining temperature stations in the U.S., has designated a new network of higher-quality temperature stations that meet its citing specifications. Unfortunately, NOAA doesn’t widely publicize data from this new network, and puts raw data in spreadsheets buried on one of its Web sites.
Anthony Watts proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public. Watts has deep expertise in Web site design generally and is well-known and highly regarded by weathermen and meteorologists everywhere. The new site will be promoted heavily at WattsUpwithThat.com.
Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The Anonymous
Donor has already pledged $44,000. We’ll seek to raise the balance.
BBD - you're a joke
"Cleared" by whom - The Graun and his own institute?
Gleick admitted forging the initial email and it's pretty clear he forged the document - deal with it.
Why are you obsessed with Heartland helping Watt's out with the temperature station website anyway
Does raw climate data always need to be kept out of the hands of the general public?
Who thinks $88k is an extraordinarily large fee for creating a simple data viewing tool?
it's pretty clear he forged the document - deal with it.
For someone so quick to threaten a journal with legal action, FG, you are astonishingly incautious about what you say.
Does raw climate data always need to be kept out of the hands of the general public?
What a remarkably paranoid remark. You seem to believe that the data is deliberately hidden, but that's nonsense. Anyone can download it and run it on Excel. Or you can just look at it using a data viewing utility. Here's one such that was created for free:
NOAA 1900 - present annual means
One has to wonder just what exactly you get by way of added value for $88k.
Perhaps Gleick will sue for damage to his impeccable reputation.
You're an odd cove Beeby - some of us remember when you were a red-in-tooth-and-claw denier….
Quote …. "Future climate change will have nothing to do with you, me, this blog or failed Western talking shops and the delusion of future global influence that they project." BBD Bishop Hill Oct 14, 2010 at 12:15 AM
………"on the face of it you appear to agree with me that ‘environmentalism’ encompasses malign influences from the extremes of both Left and Right."
BBD Bishop Hill Jan 17, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Unlike you, FG, I am smart enough to realise when I am wrong and honest enough to admit it.
But keep on trying to delegitimise me in any way you can. It only makes you look worse.
The funny thing is, IIRC Watts has never denied being paid HI to build the Amazing Wonderful $88k data viewing utility.
In fact I have a feeling he confirmed that the information was correct. Anyone know?
Your article did not reach the lowest standards required to mount a peer reviewed reply - thus there were none. Any reviewer who agreed to pass the thing was nothing but a dishonest shill like yourself.
You and the journal should both be ashamed of yourselves.
That's a bit uncharitable, Jeff Id. After all, the journal has gone on record as saying:
Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study.
As for "shilling" - that implies misrepresentation in the service of a third party. It sounds a bit paranoid to me.
Watts has never denied receiving money from Heartland. But it is lie to state that it was to “promote it's oil sponsors anti-science agenda”. It's to provide a public database of climate information.
Does NathanD express the same hatred for the climate scientists at MIT financed by Exxon, Shell and Total who were demonstrating their projections of an 8°C possible temperature rise by the end of the century with pictures of themselves standing round a roulette wheel?
1 2 3 4 Next
Post a Comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account.