#and that those extremely personal ties are perhaps responsible for a level of discourse we otherwise would not have seen | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

angels-heap · 4 years

Note

Okay hello I feel like you are Wise and Know things... it’s kind of hard to explain but is it wrong to just... Enjoy Things? With all the HL pisscourse going around it’s making me nervous about liking things like TF2 and missing something critical and huge in the media I consume and being labelled as a bad person for doing that. ESPECIALLY for liking characters like GLaDOS or Wheatley from Portal. I want to just Enjoy Things but there’s guilt tied to not being critical about every single detail

Thanks for reaching out, friend, and I’m so sorry to hear the current nonsense has you feeling this way. I have a hunch you’re not alone, and although I don’t claim to have all the answers here, I hope hearing my thoughts on this helps alleviate some of that guilt. This got long and I’m not putting it under a cut because it’s important.

The short answer to your question is no; it is not wrong to just enjoy things. You don’t have to constantly examine all your favorite media under a microscope and incessantly highlight or dwell on its faults to be a good person or a good consumer of media, and here are a few reasons why:

(CW for brief mentions of all the squicky/potentially triggering things that tend to come up in ship discourse conversations.)

1. It is virtually impossible to find a truly unproblematic piece of media.

And that’s okay! Media is both created and consumed by people, and people are notoriously imperfect and complex. Sometimes creators choose to explore dark or taboo themes that are always going to squick some people out, no matter how well (or poorly) they’re handled. Sometimes content creators are actually terrible people who deliberately try to perpetuate their messed-up ideas through media. Sometimes creators’ deeply internalized prejudices seep into a work in a way they may not even consciously realize. Sometimes consumers’ experiences or prejudices color the way they perceive a piece of media and may lead them to a very different interpretation than what the creators intended.

Point is, there are a lot of shades of gray here. We should always strive to do better as creators and consumers, but the goalposts for “perfection” are always moving.

There’s almost always going to be something about your favorite media—no matter how benign it is—that rubs some people the wrong way, or (perhaps unintentionally) perpetuates harmful stereotypes, or starts out okay but doesn’t age well down the line. Period. That’s an uncomfortable truth that we all have to sit with. But don’t despair, because…

2. It is still okay to engage with and enjoy media that you know is problematic. Even if it’s really problematic. For real. I promise. The media you consume does not determine your worth as a person.

Since you specifically mentioned Valve games, I’ll start out by clarifying that (as of July 2020), Valve games and their fandoms are pretty benign overall. Perhaps in the future, more of the humor will start to age poorly, or Valve will make some extremely questionable design choices with their next game, or Gabe Newell will be outed as a prolific serial killer, or whatever, but for now, there’s really nothing about Valve games that should make the average person go, “holy shit, you’re into that?!” when you bring them up in polite company. (And anyone who insinuates otherwise re: Half Life shipping discourse is either very confused about the definition of certain words or is maliciously trying to stir up controversy.)

That said, everyone has a different threshold for what they do and don’t want to see in media, and those boundaries are totally valid! But it is absolutely possible to enjoy even notably problematic media (e.g., Game of Thrones, the new Star Wars sequels, old movies where the directors were huge assholes to the female cast members, etc.) without being a bad person or a bad social justice activist. Instead of rambling about that at length, I’m going to link you to this excellent blog post on the subject.

The big takeaway here is that you can love a piece of media while also acknowledging its faults. In fact, I’d argue that a key part of loving something is being able to think critically about it and trying to hold its creators to a higher standard whenever possible. However, that doesn’t mean you have to be constantly analyzing it or prefacing every single public acknowledgment of your love for it with an “I know this is problematic and I swear, I just like it for XYZ” disclaimer, because…

3. Tumblr’s black-and-white thinking about media consumption is not healthy, “normal,” or (usually) present to the same degree in other virtual or real-world spaces.

I think most of the people on Tumblr who seem to be on a constant (and ultimately futile; see point 1) quest to find the One True Unproblematic Media have good intentions. I really do. And I applaud them for actively trying to understand and un-learn their own biases while becoming critical consumers of media.

Unfortunately, for a bunch of complicated reasons I still don’t totally understand and won’t get into here, some online communities tend to take these things to such an extreme that, in their quest to create a safe and/or inclusive environment, they actually end up creating an even more hostile one. To reference the recent drama again, nowhere is that more apparent than with “pro-ship” vs. “anti-ship” discourse.

Basically, “pro-shippers” believe that fiction is entirely separate from reality and therefore, “problematic” content (up to and including p*dophilia, inc*st, noncon, etc.) has just as much of a right to exist as any other content; this makes some sense on a purely intellectual level, but in the real world, obviously things are much more complicated than that. “Anti-shippers,” on the other hand, claim to be specifically against the aforementioned Big Three Bad Things in theory, but in practice, they’re basically the fandom purity police; they strive to criticize and shut down any media or fandom activity that could be even remotely construed as problematic, because they seem to have a (perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately misguided) perception that discussing anything “bad” in fiction will glorify/condone/promote it in real life and that all creators of “bad” fiction are inherently malicious. Often, they’re willing to twist definitions and jump through some very strange hoops to justify why something is “bad.”

The truth lies somewhere between those two extremes; fiction absolutely can (and does) impact reality, but not in such a clear-cut cause-and-effect way. People can see or read about dark/complicated/problematic things without condoning or enjoying them in real life, and conversely, people can dislike even relatively benign things without having to have an extreme, profound reason for feeling that way. People can also enjoy “bad” media while being fully conscious of what’s wrong with it and taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t negatively influence them, or they may lack the knowledge/context to understand why something is “bad” at first and change how they engage (or don’t engage) as they learn. There’s a lot more nuance to this issue than Tumblr is willing to acknowledge, and as a result, a lot of innocent people who just want to enjoy things in peace get sucked into some truly absurd drama that can be really hard to deal with. And that sucks. A lot.

So, TL;DR: Almost all media is at least a little problematic, but that’s okay, because the media you like does not determine whether or not you’re a good person. (And especially if your primary interests are Valve games... you’re good, mate. Seriously.)

The fact that you’re even asking me this question shows me that you’re being a thoughtful, responsible consumer of media, and that’s all anyone can reasonably ask of you without being a gigantic hypocrite—because whether they’ll admit it or not, everybody who’s perpetuating this discourse both on and offline likes something “problematic.” It’s impossible not to, unless you live under a rock and consume exactly zero media. Take care, and try not to let the discourse get to you! Go forth and enjoy things! (As always, my inbox is open for follow-up questions.)

ETA: Here’s another excellent tumblr post on this topic! And another one!

#asks #anon #fandom #ship discourse #sorry it took me so long to respond to this #I'm sure I left things out but here are some thoughts to get you started #long post

51 notes · View notes

brendanelliswilliams · 3 years

Text

Misappropriated Language and Outmoded Ideology in the Church, and How We Might Move Beyond Them

A good friend and fellow priest posted this past Sunday on his Facebook page that he had been frustrated in trying to write a sermon, feeling that so much of the language he would normally use had been coopted and tainted by right-wing Evangelical white nationalists. The following was my reply to him (with a few minor points of clarification added here):

‘Fr. Karl Rahner once said that he thought the Church should fast from using the word “God” for at least fifty years, until we can all get clear about what we’re actually doing and saying with a term like that, and get deeply rooted and serious enough in our theological speculations to warrant its use. (Fr. Richard Rohr suggested we take the same approach with the name “Jesus”, and I concur; in fact, I think we are much more in need of fasting from this latter name than from the former.) It seems to me that there’s a great deal of wisdom in this approach. What you point out here is the principal reason why the “Jesus Movement” language so ubiquitous in the Episcopal Church today feels misplaced to me, and in fact really chafes every time I hear it. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Presiding Bishop and the basic elements of his vision, but I find this sort of language to be hitting the wrong chord. To me it feels ill matched with where the Church is at now, and where it should be going—and with where the world is at with regard to the Church. It partakes of precisely the same sorts of dissonances you’re highlighting. In the Western Church today we are always in danger of simply repeating platitudes, or unwittingly furthering falsities by allowing ourselves to remain stuck with misappropriated and imprecise language. Most peoples’ “Christology” in the West (if you can even call it that—maybe we should say “Jesusology” instead) is, in my humble opinion, really lacking the deep roots of the tradition. And that leaves us with a rather small and limited vision. This is one reason (among several) why I almost exclusively use “Christ” in religious discourse, or “Christ-Sophia”. I think we need that sort of lens again, which is both broader and more nuanced, and which, if we’re intelligent about it (rather than merely reactionary or political) can liberate us from all the heinous misunderstanding and misuse that has colored Christianity in the West for so long, and afford us a much more effectual set of linguistic and imagistic tools for legitimate transformation. Rahner also said, “Christians of the future will be mystics or they won’t exist at all.” In my view, that’s where we’re headed now from this particular crossroads, if we have the depth and courage to claim the calling of real religiosity. As I perceive it, that’s the divine invitation. And it can most definitely take us into a truer, more authentic, and more rooted place, away from all the baggage of the language and imagery you’re rightly lamenting.’

I saw a photo today from the Capitol riot on January 6th. In the background of the photo was one of what appears to have been many ‘Jesus Saves’ or similar signs present at that event. No doubt those folks also consider themselves to be part of the (‘true’) ‘Jesus Movement’. To be sure, their coopting of Jesus as a figure who supports their insane fundamentalism, egoic delusions, and desire for power is corrupt and evil, but I wonder how ours really differs, structurally speaking. The (white) progressive Jesus is ‘nicer’, but is our understanding of what such a figure really means and invites us into that much deeper than their reactionary, fundamentalist version of the same? Both expressions are drawn in essence from the same literal-historical trends in hermeneutics; it’s just that they emphasize different elements of received texts and interpretations. Granted, I strongly affirm that the emphases of right-wing Evangelicalism (and Evangelicalism at large, in fact) are objectively destructive and immoral, but fundamentally both interpretations play the same sorts of hermeneutical games: they operate in the same playing field, not only culturally (in a homogeneous container), but also religiously.

In other words, all Christians in the West are at some level responsible for this cancerous appropriation of Christian values. Even in progressive circles, in spite of our best intentions, we partake of the language, the dominator cultural styles and structures that have birthed and perpetuated all this toxicity. Until we face that head-on, how can we go about the real work of healing or ‘wholing’ ourselves into a mode of religiosity that is finally supportive of the values of Life, of Nature, of Divinity, rather than blatantly contrary to them?

One of the many problems we face now as people in the Church who want desperately to lead it in a direction of Life—rather than death, ignominy, political coopting, immorality, and corrosion—is that most Western Christians have a rather surface-level view of Jesus, and of Christ more broadly. So the toolkit we’ve been given to work with to articulate a better vision for ourselves is extremely limited. In the United States particularly, it should now be abundantly clear how tied up with right-wing nationalism, racism, and dominator values this theologically underdeveloped mode of Christian language has become. This means—obviously, I hope—that we need to expand and deepen our toolkit, drawing from the deepest and most life giving roots of the tradition.

The lack of adequate Christological understanding is not the fault of ordinary Christian folk; it’s what has been fed to them by their clergy, and it’s what was taught to most of those clergy in seminary for the last two or three generations. It’s what I call the ‘social Gospel, historical Jesus’ trend, and, in my view, this is a trend that has utterly crippled mainline and progressive Christian denominations, and in many cases created a notion of Christian religiosity as (essentially) little more than social justice work with a veneer of religious language. Of course, the work of justice is crucial, but what happens when we scrub away the Mystery, the experiential, inward transformation that is actually required to give rise to authentic justice, the richness of myth and symbology, leaving only this ‘social Gospel, historical Jesus’ layer of ideation? Well, as I’ve been saying for many years now: I think it is perfectly plain to see what happens in that case, as we now see it playing out all around us: the Church is collapsing, and (ironically) has almost no socio-cultural clout, which is the only thing it seems to have really desired for the last five or six decades.

I pray that people will finally be ready to move beyond all this, into something with real transformative capacity. But, alas, I suspect many, if not most, will not. So many Western Christians, of whatever stripe, seem absolutely determined to cling to all manner of outmoded and unhealthful aspects of Christian religious expression, language, and dogma, simply for the sake of safety, comfort, and security in the ‘known quantity’. And that, we can be sure, will lead us nowhere, both individually and collectively.

Might we not attempt to root our religion in actual religion? In other words, can we not learn once more to base our religious affiliation and practice on a legitimate and appropriately comparative understanding of myth, religious narrative, the ‘perennial philosophy’, and the actual aims of religiosity—namely, the science of spiritual transformation through initiatory, ascetical, liturgical, sacramental, and other modes of productive individual and communal sacred work? Haven’t we had enough of basing our religion on socio-cultural and academic trends in lieu of what actually transforms? Are the disastrous results of that finally clear enough for all to see? Of course, we must evolve with the times—I am by no stretch of the imagination a reactionary, and I am stringently anti-fundamentalist in every possible way—but this current disaster we now inhabit is what happens when, in the rush and distraction of that process of cultural evolution, we lose touch with the real root and purpose of the whole operation in the first place; that is, when we lose our memory and understanding of what religion is actually for and what it’s meant to accomplish in the human person.

I won’t enter here into the many additional issues related to male dominator language and the rest of the attendant cancerous threads that have long plagued Abrahamic religious expression, or their effects on Church and society; if you’re interested in all that, you might find some food for reflection in my book, Seeds from the Wild Verge. But here’s an idea: Let’s focus on the Blessed Mother for a while—very deeply: not just linguistically and imagistically, but theologically and practically as well, in a nuanced and committed fashion, not for purposes of political correctness but out of profound theological curiosity and a spirit of expansive internal exploration. God knows all you Protestant types out there could use a serious (and indefinite) dose of the Mother.

I was reflecting recently on what a truly sad circumstance it is that I often feel I can much more readily find depth and theological nuance in contemporary Hindu discourse on Christ, the Blessed Mother, etc., than I can in contemporary Christian discourse on the same. A terrible irony. It often feels to me as if we need to restore Christianity with inspiration from non-Christian sources—something I’ve done in my work with native Celtic traditions, but which could (and perhaps should) be done with inspiration from other arenas as well; for instance, from Vedanta, which has not only unequivocally maintained a far more refined and mature view of religion and its aims than most Christians have, but in fact often seems to possess a more mature view of Christianity than most Christians presently do.

Writing in 1963, Swami Prabhavananda astutely observed: ‘Of course there are millions of Christians today who attend churches regularly…but of those who do, few seek perfection in God. Most people are satisfied with living a more or less ethical life on earth in hope of being rewarded in an afterlife for any good deeds they may have done. Christ’s ideal of perfection is generally either forgotten or misunderstood. True, many people read the Sermon on the Mount, but few try to live its teachings.’

Now, almost sixty years later, that statement proves to be even more radically true than it was then. We have much work to do, friends, if we wish to restore the Church to something that truly transforms, which is truly relevant in a perennial way, and which is positioned not only to survive but to once more contribute something of inestimable value to the world. This will involve us, should we have the courage take up the task, in reclaiming the profound Mystery in Christian tradition, its ancient spiritual practices, and its expansively symbolic depth. May we set out with open hearts on that next adventure—and may we do so quickly.

Peace and every blessing,

Fr. Brendan+

4 notes · View notes

autoirishlitdiscourses · 3 years

Text

Discourse of Friday, 14 May 2021

Extra credit cannot lift you naturally into the midterm and recitation of a rather fine line about how you might mean by passionate, insightful, focused discussion about the family relationship in The Butcher Boy is going on the poetry discussion of An Spalpin Fanach. In each case, each will have to drop courses without fee via GOLD. Think about what's likely to be unable to do the following categories best describe it: A-range paper does what it means to go with this group of people haven't done the reading. I will be by the selections in which Celtic myth informs one or another of the texts listed on the test in a very solid job tonight! A piece of work to make your arguments further in the first six minutes of your discussion and question provoked close readings. If you have any substantial problems, including those which incur no penalties. 5% of course agree with opinions that have been balanced a bit over 91. This is a good selection, in part because it's a very difficult thing to think not about how to properly attribute the language and ideas in a paper. There are several potentially productive move might be the two tests by nearly thirty points, though, #3, what he can find out. /Viewer, and below 103 to drop it off at the end of the Yeats poems on the section during our last two; and elsewhere. Presenting a paper before I pass out a reminder that you're aware of areas where it could have gone beyond. Again, thank you for a long selection and you are absolutely capable of doing an excellent delivery, which pulled the grades up for the announcement in lecture tomorrow! Many students are correctly identifying at least twelve lines of poetry or prose from an interesting passage and have decided to transition us over to how you're going to be reciting as soon as I can say more specifically about your own questions quite so quickly.

Your writing is also available. You picked an important maneuver. Wikipedia article on poitín for more information. /That you must at least twelve lines in front of a country Begins as attachment to our understanding of the recording of him consenting to be making a specific set of additional purposes, as critic Harold Bloom phrases the relationship between the two dogs at it from being in front of the relevant chapters as a way that specific speeches have influenced people is a good weekend!

Each of you will receive a passing grade; made an incredibly long time, he is the cluster of assumptions that you should come first, it seems pretty obvious. So I had more I could have been done even more specific feedback if you'd like. From French poulet. But moving up into the final exam schedule.

It can be hard to pull your grade to demonstrate what a bright student you are scheduled to recite and discuss this coming Wednesday 4 November. I will cut you off. Etc. As I told him that I haven't marked deviations from the Oct 17 vocab quiz: Matthew Arnold's/On the other members of the room. Thanks again for a bit more so that I still say that I didn't hear that. Of course! I think it's an essential element from the evil criminals who are advocates of reform as a discussion of Rosie's attempted seducation of The Butcher Boy particularly difficult in multiple ways. Soon to be on the most incredibly minor errors, but I thought I'd responded to being told that not doing this in your paper are yours and which texts have a sense of where you need me to file an informational report that doesn't work, and choose a good narrative path through them and wind up attending section Thanksgiving week will partially serve as a whole.

Got it!

It is your opportunity to demonstrate this. The Stolen Child 5 p. Another potential difficulty is that you do not accept papers after the midterm, and perform the resulting articles and see whether I can think in the course material for which I suspect I already know: you had a very good job of engaging the class of what might be the subject in section this quarter, you had a good choice, and I think that one of three percent/of your finals, and that the one he'd used in unfamiliar ways, and the phrasing that you arrive promptly in section and leave it. However, I had hoped, motivating people to do two things. You did a good discussion. Without going back through my copy and redirect the link to the small-scale concerns very effectively this can be in my marginal annotations—none of your future endeavors, and your material you emphasize again, I believe them or want you to reschedule, and gender stereotypes. Up to/two percent/for/excellent delivery, very solid manner. You have a lot of reasons, including the fact that he is, I think, but you picked to the professor means that a number of things differently. Would you go up and see whether I can point to the bleeded potato-stalks; and changed the overall purpose of engaging the rest of the text and/or disorganized to the right person to do two things: 1 I think that thinking meta-narrative that is closely tied to romance, which was previously the theoretical maximum. So you've improved your grade later in section, this would be best for you for doing a very reduced set of readings here, and have some good, fairly contemporary 1948 reading of the 19th century, and I quite liked your paper is often quite engaging and lucid despite the occasional minor hiccup here and there are parts of Ben Bulben The Stare's Nest again so that I suspect that he meant to be exchanged for it. You have some very good work. 1% boost, but there are potentially profitable, but is perhaps most useful here, and larger-scale course concerns. Tonight requirement in your delivery does not conform to the romance meta-critically about your other email in just a moment. You definitely have a documented disability that prevents you from noticing when people disagreed with you will almost certainly talk your ear off about visual readings of Ulysses that's sitting in my mailbox South Hall 2617. 5% of course not obligated to go about it.

Failure to turn your major say two concerns from each section. My experience is interesting and possibly very productive reading in the class if you pick one or more appropriate theoretical lenses depending on what texts you see from The Butcher Boy is going well. This is a clear line between some line between analysis and less discussion than was optimal, but there wasn't really much in the end of your discussion. You're capable of doing better than you've managed to introduce some major aspect of your paper and have a more open-ended would have needed to be prompted on line 14. However, you showed that you want to say to i says in this paper are borrowed from other sources. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon; Woman with Mustard Pot aha! 12 Paul Muldoon, Quoof McCabe Butcher Boy would give you a bit rushed. Try thinking about what you'd like. Of course! Finally, for the quarter, but all in all, you've done a lot of ground, and turn them into questions that will ask you to instantiate a logical argument that is causing you stress, then it makes it an even more specifically what the finals schedule says. Second Sin 2. There are no cries of unfair! This would allow you to embrace them, paying for their meals, and you have demonstrated in class so far, with his catalog of responses; the title. This is really required, of course welcome to send your grade for the quarter by ⅓ of the individual phrases in your paper, if you have selected after your recitation notes and get people to speak if no one else in your delivery.

A repeated thematic in the paper in the context of your discussion on Francie's mother is a disclosure path is extremely unlikely, because it's easier for me to but I'm quite glad that worked out and say exactly what you want me to identify your discussion, and don't have a thesis statement expresses, and we can talk about, say, some options would be to email me the updated version by Friday, I. The number I quoted you is to blame conversation in lecture if they don't work for the final exam, research paper will anticipate and head off other viewpoints, and you do a solid and perceptive as the audio or video recording of your argument though there are a lot of things is he at representing what Gertie is actually something of genuinely excellent job! This is a scholar's job to figure out what that pole of your paper graded so that the extra credit cannot lift you into the important aspects to it while you were able to avoid hesitation, backing up your discussion was really more lecture-based and less discussion-based discomfort effectively motivate other people to explore additional implications of the people who recite together get the breathless exhausted happy quality of the friend who was scheduled to recite them, and get that to be finding a way that they've done for most students the last section on Wednesday or Friday between 11:00 it will be on that level. I hope you feel this way.

These are comparatively small errors, and is a weaker way of being, as it sounds, because I believe you, we could meet at a more incisive claim here would be to try to force a discussion is really quite interesting. Your argument is thoughtful and nuanced, and please let me know which date you want your reader to come up repeatedly, and how different human bodies are sorted conceptually into different races. Let me know as soon as I am behind on responding to emails from students: Bloomswake-A journey through Joyce's Dublin during the quarter, and the purest and most valuable form of desire.

I think that you may find it necessary to use the Internet, just make sure the other students were engaged and sensitive to the section as the professor has said that it looks like there are several ways that readers respond to a specific explanation of the section website has some interesting and important things to talk about what you're going with their lives. Remember that you took. Hi! Unless I hear back tomorrow, I think it's good you have the midterms in section tonight. Wordsworth's Prelude frequently describes the poet thinking or resting under a bunch of old people who see you next week, so I hope your surgery went smoothly. All in all, you did quite a good job here in a close visual reading of Godot, and what women really are quite fair and often rather graceful, and I know how many minutes away you are of equal or even better on future assignments. You dropped an or in abusive situations; mothers who don't participate in it. There are also some textual problems that I have not been speaking regularly so far in this passage. Tomorrow! All of these is to look at how he did it because he'd been focusing on Heaney's presentation of the most part though it is, or the MLA standard; the professor gives his TAs a fair amount of good things to talk about how most people think, always a productive discussion out.

I absolutely have to give yourself time to reschedule, and I believe that the directions specified that they haven't read; it's of more benefit to the course's discourse about sexuality and fidelity, which shows that you've got some good things to say, I think it would have gotten this to make sure that we admire the protagonist for righting wrongs that the question fully by providing additional examples from Sartre and Camus to enrich your analysis assumes that alternate options have been helpful, but I can help you to get a B that you needed to—but looking at it from the section by section all ten weeks this quarter, but all in all, you might ask the professor and ask yourself what your exact point of causing interpretive difficulty for the course are not a demand.

This is again entirely up to help motivate yourself to do here would be central to the section, but the Purdue OWL is a very good plan here. Grading rubric for analytical papers like this and have more sections that he's talked about effective ways to do you see them instantiated in particular, a B if turned in on Wednesday by 4 p.

It was a strongly motivated demonstration of relevance will, I hope you won't have time to get full credit a lot of ways that you prepared more material than you'll actually be factored in until the very end of your recitation comes, make selections from other sources. So you can be found online at or, perhaps after the recitation of a heterosexual romantic relationship is between the selection. We Lost Eavan Boland these poems can be a TA, is a disclosure path is extremely implausible will be given away on a larger-scale concerns that are changing not in many ways. At the same grade, divided as follows: Up to/one percent/for leading an insightful, meaningful contributions to the next generation moves to New York? Of course! There are a lot of ways—this has in the day after O'Casey is scheduled, therefore, is to email me immediately afterwards to make sure to do. Finally, the more productive question is a concrete suggestion for how these particular texts, and I hope everyone had an A-is, in turn, based on your writing. A range, actually, but if he hasn't taken it yet or you can make your paper is due or a test in a lot in this range provide a reading by the time I send you a copy from being even more specific about where you're going to say that women don't have a discussion leader for the quarter.

#Irish literature #automatically generated text #Patrick Mooney #Python #Markov chains

0 notes