INEPT WITHOUT END, AMEN: Goldberg believes, Gene Lyons don't!

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2017

Part 5—It's all anthropology now:
Below, we'll show you some things Gene Lyons said about Juanita Broaddrick this week—about the accuser Michelle Goldberg has newly declared she believes.

First, though, a quick overview:

On Friday morning, November 10, the Washington Post published its first report about Roy Moore's conduct in the late 1970s.

In that 3900-word report, Leigh Corfman, an Alabama woman, alleged that Moore molested her in 1979, when she was 14 years old.
The report also cited three apparent "supporting witnesses," though they may not have seemed like supporting witnesses depending on the extent to which you longed to stampede.

Corfman was alleging a serious crime. From that day to this, the work of our pseudo-liberal elite has been inept all the way down.

Good God! So many questions:
Just for starters, four questions:

1) Should people have assumed that Corfman's claims were true, right there that first day?

2) Should liberals have started name-calling the "If true" crowd—the people who didn't state an instant verdict?

3) Should people have regarded those apparent "supporting witnesses" as actual supporting witnesses?

4) Even now, should people be describing Moore as an "accused pedophile," given, for example, the meaning of the latter term?
Other questions pop into our heads as we watch the stampede of the pseudo-liberals. For example, do these life forms understand the meaning of terms like "alleged" and accused?"

Judging by parts of their current stampede, it isn't real clear that they do.

For ourselves, we know of no reason to doubt what Corfman told the Washington Post. We also know of no obvious way to swear on a stack of corporate liberals that her statements are accurate.

This is a basic problem which arises when we turn out politics into a series of accusations involving private behavior. Such accusations can be very hard to judge even in court. In the realm of public debate, the task becomes nearly impossible.

Most likely, a continental nation can't long endure once it decides to conduct its politics in this exciting way. But then, who cares about that?

Here at this award-winning site, we're not sure we've ever seen The Dumbness surpass the level it's reached in the two weeks since that first Post report. We'll only say this:

In the wake of this latest stampede, it's pretty much all anthropology now! We're no longer involved in press critique at this award-winning site. We're involved in scientific description of a badly misfiring life form, a life form about which sacred Aristotle was just hopelessly wrong.

Is man (sic) really the rational animal? So said the sacred Greek!

Today, we can see that he was hopelessly wrong. Today, it's abundantly clear that man (sic) is really the tribal animal, or perhaps the stampeding animal. Also, following sacred Wittgenstein, man (sic) is the animal which has trouble with words.

At some point, we may return to Professor Horwich with respect to that latter point. Today, let's look at what Lyons said this week with respect to Juanita Broaddrick, an accuser of Bill Clinton.

In the stampede which followed that Post report, the New York Times' Michelle Goldberg swallowed a snootful and wrote a column which bore this virtue-signalling headline:

I Believe Juanita

They're on a first-name basis now! Quite a few children cheered.

That said, there was no sign in Goldberg's column that she had any idea what she was talking about, or any clear basis for her shiny new belief. Sadly, the children were launching a new stampede, one which would distinguish their stampedes from those of their pseudo-liberal elders.

Sillily, Goldberg pretended to explain why she now believes Juanita, concerning whom Lyons has written such things as the text reproduced below perhaps ten million times.

We're omitting material from Lyons' column; you should peruse the full text. As Goldberg may have heard at some point, Lyons has written two books on these topics, one of which he co-authored with Joe Conason:
LYONS (3/22/17): Maybe something happened between then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock hotel room in 1979. Also, maybe not. However, to accuse a man of a vile crime like rape requires serious evidence. And I'm sorry, but there simply never was any, apart from Broaddrick's unverifiable tale—one she'd previously denied three times under oath and penalty of perjury.

Then after falling into the hands of [Kenneth] Starr and his team of prosecutorial bedsheet sniffers, she sang a different tune.

[...]

[Broaddrick had] filed an affidavit and given a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign," Broaddrick swore, "there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late '70s. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."

So no, I don't know, and neither do you.
With apologies to George Carlin, you'll note that Lyons said the three words you aren't allowed to say on cable TV or in a New York Times column. Lyons said these three dirty words:

I don't know.

In the manner of the tribal animal, Goldberg moved from "I don't know" to "I believe" in the course of a single paragraph. That said, the story of our own liberal tribe is plainly ineptitude all the way down.

Allowing for the intermingling of simple dishonesty, it's been that way for at least the past twenty-five years.

Why did Broaddrick change her story when Ken Starr arrived on the scene? Like Lyons, we have no way of knowing, if you know what "knowing" means.

That said, Lyons went on to sketch the outlines of one possible explanation. Note! When we say it's "possible," that means we don't know if it's true:
LYONS (continuing directly): This too: Juanita Broaddrick ran a nursing home facility reliant on Medicaid and Medicare funding—a motherlode of potential federal crimes. Not because she was crooked. There's zero evidence of that. But that wouldn't have mattered once Starr's prosecutors put her on the rack.

You wouldn't have thought they'd question the legality of [Julie] Steele's adopted child either. But they did.

So did Juanita choose the easier path? Which time?

The FBI couldn't decide.
Uh-oh! Lyons suggested a possibility—the possibility that Starr's team threatened Broaddrick with legal actions, perhaps dishonestly, in ways which made her flip on her previous statements. Given the overall conduct of Starr's team, that possibility is depressingly real, unless you're a somewhat small child.

Goldberg says that didn't happen. But how does this tribal star know this?

We suggest you read all of Lyons' column, in which he suggests you read the book he wrote with Conason. That will never affect this discussion, of course. Within the realm of the corporate "press," the talking Ken and Barbie dolls all say this when poked or squeezed:

Reading books is hard!

Did Bill Clinton rape Juanita Broaddrick? Like Lyons, Goldberg can't exactly know. She does know how to type this:

"It's fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick's allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society."

We default to our earlier question. Does this ridiculous person actually know what the word "allegations" means?

Our advice to you would be this:

If you want to understand the world in which we live; if you want to understand our tapidly failing nation; then you have to come to terms with this anthropological fact:

Aristotle was clownishly wrong about us so-called humans! The hirelings thrown at you by the corporate press tend to be the tribal and status-seeking animals, with "rational" lagging behind.

Hints of the rational may appear. But they're not required.

Should you "believe the accusers," full stop, no questions asked? Plainly, no, you shouldn't do that, and there's something else you should avoid.

You shouldn't believe the TV stars and the stampeding columnists. Our tendency to believe these types has proven to be extremely bad for the planet's troubled health.

Coming next week: Back to that first Post report. Also, Moore meets Leslie Caron!

36 comments:

  1. You don’t automatically believe but you investigate, because you don’t automatically disbelieve either.

    Lea Corfman attemped suicide at age 16. She was married and divorced three times. We cannot prove that was because of her earlier experience with Moore, but it is similar to girls who were indisputably molested. Because such acts have consequences for young girls. It is why they are illegal. That seems to be missing from Somerby’s rush to define “pedophilia”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > Somerby’s rush to define “pedophilia”.

      Somerby does not appear to be in any such rush.

      That word has, of course, already been defined.

      Delete
    2. Yes. Sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Which is not Roy Moore.

      I used to love MSNBC. But their hysterical and dishonest demonization of all things Republican-- and their constant slandering of their voters -- sickens me.

      Do they WANT Moore to be a "child molester"? Obviously. Just like they want him to have "nine" accusers of sexual misconduct when there are only two. But it's backfiring.

      Delete
    3. "I used to love MSNBC. But their hysterical and dishonest demonization of all things Republican-- and their constant slandering of their voters -- sickens me."

      If they keep this up, Dem9ocrats might soon own the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the feederal government, just like it worked for Republicans when the Fox, AM radio,and other right-wing, corporayte-owned media did the same.
      Or is this one of those, 'liberals need to fight with one hand tied behind their backs" posts, because only one side of our political spectrum can be held to standards?

      Delete
    4. Puberty hapens at 8-10 years old fir some girls. I suppose you pervs think they’re fair game too. Do you buy them Barbies to gain their trust?

      Delete
    5. Anon, the point and purpose of a legal age of consent (set between 16 and 18 in all US states, and at 16 in Canada) is to take that decision out of individual hands, and you might notice it also doesn't leave it quite so close to actual puberty.

      But that's not the function of the diagnostic categories (-philias), which is simply to distinguish between the attractions involved.

      You might as well accuse people of being robots if they discuss robotics, or of being aliens if they discuss the possibility of off-world life, as accuse them of being perverts if they try to make sure a technical term about perversion is used correctly.

      Delete
    6. Because somehow men are rarely accused of histrionics.

      Delete
    7. Because the accusers had mistaken the word for "hysterics".

      As with the accusations of racism for uses of the terms "niggardly" and "chink in the armor"....

      The common factors are (a) ignorance of vocabulary and (b) self-righteousness — together at the same time.

      Rather like the present case of netkookery, accusing other people of sexual perversion for correcting one's own vocabulary error.

      Reminiscent of the infamous netkook Curio Jones, who wound up accusing half Usenet (and then Hollywood) of pedophilia, Satanic Ritual Abuse, and conspiring with Alien Abductors. (Diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic with delusional disorder, and spent time in a state mental hospital, after threatening to shoot one person she was accusing.)

      Delete
  2. "Other questions pop into our heads as we watch the stampede of the pseudo-liberals."

    Ah, the famous 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. No, dear Bob, these are not 'pseudo-liberals', they are perfectly normal, typical liberals.

    And no, Bob, man is NOT necessarily the tribal/stampeding animal. But liberal zombies certainly are - at least in this day and age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All humans behave similarly.

      Delete
    2. I see the Breitbart zombie never fails to chime in.

      Delete
    3. "I see the Breitbart zombie never fails to chime in."

      You just have to point to Trump's big, fat, wet kisses to the "Establishment". He ignores those daily.

      Delete
  3. “Should you "believe the accusers," full stop, no questions asked? Plainly, no, you shouldn't do that, and there's something else you should avoid. You shouldn't believe the TV stars and the stampeding columnists.” (We don’t unless they're on Fox or AM radio.)

    I lived in the deep South for forty years Bob; you have nothing to worry about; the people of the great god fearing state of Alabama will not let you down. They will send Alabama’s finest to the US Senate. He represents the only two things on this Earth that they care about--guns and The Bible (and maybe add NASCAR and wraslin’). What’s wrong with the people electing representatives who are just like them? In Trump’s case, he’s what the people who voted for him aspire to be--a rich ignorant asshole, rather than the poor ignorant assholes that they are and will always be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the poor ignorant assholes that they are and will always be"

      Thank god we still have utterly superior heavenly creatures like yourself among us.

      Please, please, please - don't emigrate to Canada...

      Delete
    2. What you don't understand is that it is the ignorant assholes who feel superior. I don't believe in superior or inferior.

      Delete
  4. "We're no longer involved in press critique at this award-winning site. We're involved in scientific description of a badly misfiring life form, a life form about which sacred Aristotle was just hopelessly wrong."

    First off, thanks to Somerby for informing his readers of his change of mission. This may come as a surprise to many, especially those who quite recently described Somerby as a "media critic", or to those who thought this blog was about the "mainstream press corps."
    Secondly, Somerby despairs about man, the hopelessly broken life form, but somehow only finds time to discuss the brokenness of liberals. So, I call bs on the new mission statement. It's still a politically motivated blog, despite Somerby's lofty philosophical pseudo-disinterested pose. He wants to attack liberals, pure and simple -- with the possible exception of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who aren't poised to shape liberal politics going forward.

    It's quite amusing to see Somerby use the word "scientific." His insults, childish name-calling, and unfounded assertions betray an emotional, not scientific, frame of mind.

    Has Somerby finally given up the ghost? Who knows what his politics are now (he once claimed to be a progressive), but no one need look to Somerby for any help in the political arena. He's too busy with his hopelessness and his anger. His mission statement boils down to "I'm just going to rant about liberals for the rest of my life."

    And anyone who believes there's a dime's worth of difference between Somerby and his most ardent commenter, Mao Cheng Ji, needs to re-examine that belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon 1:39pm: "no one need look to Somerby for any help in the political arena"

      My only quibble with this is that Somerby does indeed give someone help in the political arena. That would be the Republicans. Somerby is known as a liberal by right-wing sites, so they link their trolls here so they can revel in the joy of a liberal bashing other liberals and thus providing cover for the Republican theft of our political system. Somerby is one more voice aiding and abetting them. They get to say "see, liberals are as horrible as we said; even liberal Bob Somerby sees through their lies."

      Delete
    2. So?

      And that's an excuse for not telling the truth? Or makibg sense?

      Delete
    3. 10:32,
      No. The excuse for not telling the truth or making sense is that it wins at the voting booths.

      Delete
  5. "We're no longer involved in press critique at this award-winning site. We're involved in scientific description of a badly misfiring life form, a life form about which sacred Aristotle was just hopelessly wrong."

    That statement misfires badly because its author continues to ignore that fact that politics is, and always will be about the battle between plutocracy and democracy, which is always going to be a messy fight. So you better play to win and not worry about getting your clothes dirty.

    Plutocrats know that spreading a state of deep ignorance is essential to their maintaining their power. That’s why they own all of the mass media. It’s why they always support the stupidest and most delusional forms of religion that wreck people’s minds and leave them in a state of helplessness. They spread division and encourage irrational hatred and fears. Many Republican voters have been deluded into supporting the establishment of plutocracy--though I’m sure the majority earnestly do want to see permanent plutocracy. Those of us who still care about democracy know that plutocracy must be destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Believe it or not, there was once a time in this country when even Supreme Court justices said that plutocracy must be destroyed:

    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

    --Louis D. Brandeis

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It's all anthropology now"

    OK. I'll take a stab at this.

    Numerous sexual misconduct allegations are being leveled against quite a number of public figures. Many of these figures have either an R or D associated with their names, designating their tribe. Regarding biased and non-biased treatment of these accusations, what are some of the ways that journalists could treat the presentation of these cases? Could these professionals be categorized into various anthropological archetypes?

    Type A, The Partisan: A population explosion of these tribal types occurred with the advent of the Information Age (contrary to the name, dissemination of actual information is strongly declining during this age). These types consistently lie, exaggerate, understate or omit facts to cast those from the competing tribe in a bad light and their own tribe in a more favorable one. “By any means necessary” is the mantra of Partisans, as they are convinced that abetting their tribes would result in installing leaders who would govern such that their principles would be upheld. This reasoning has turned out to be as primitive and ineffectual as bloodletting by medieval barbers and the whirling behavior of Dervishes. Contemporary examples include three talking heads that oddly resemble characters from The Flintstones cartoon: Hannity (Barney Rubble), Doocy (Wilma Flintstone) and Maddow (Dino).

    Type B, The Weasel: Since some of the Partisan types do actually yell quite loudly and convincingly feign anger, and weak-kneed Weasels get their feelings deeply hurt when they are yelled at, Weasels include dirt on one group (just for the sake of argument, let’s say Ds) whenever reporting the scandals of another group (say Rs). Examples of Weasels include Wolf B. Weasel, Anderson C. Weasel, Chuck T. Weasel and the late Tim R. Weasel.

    Type C, The Fortune Seeker: Members of this type are generally descended from Potato Famine escapees who were too weak and self-serving to stick it out in their homeland (many hail from Clan O’Reilly, Clan O’Donnell and Clan Matthews). Like cuttlefish, these individuals can radically modify their color and form to blend into a changing (corporate) environment, thus, by virtue of widespread gullibility, profiting to the tune of vast fortunes. They are versatile, also selling vacuous coffee table books which are purchased and prominently displayed (but never read) by pseudo-intellectual Brie-eaters of both D and R persuasions.

    Type D, The Dowd: Reminiscent of a room full of spider monkeys trying to plagiarize Tolstoy, this micro-type produces perplexing batshit-crazy gibberish on each and every page. A certain commenter from a large western state is an example of this ignoble type.

    Continued below...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Continuing…

      Type E, The Believe-‘em-Alls: A new group, emboldened by the sheer number of sexual misconduct accusations, these odious band-wagoning primates cast all critical thinking aside and pretend to believe every single accusation, no matter how implausible, and grant equivalent status to each accuser without any due diligence or analysis of evidence. They can deftly equate a pinch on the ass while the “victim’s” husband photographs the event with forcible rape of a child. Largely employed by obsolete sophomoric organs like MSNBC, the New York Times and something exceedingly obscure called Slate, these monumentally lazy and cowardly nitwits make all other archetypes appear professional by comparison.

      Type F, The Anti-Partisan Media Critic: The rarest of all journalistic types. As far as anthropologists can determine, this archetype is highly endangered and contains but a single individual, who as such feels adrift in a cruel inhospitable world, like Cooper’s last Mohican Chingachgook or Nessie, the mascot of a Scottish tourism campaign. Bizarrely, this individual excoriates members of his own tribe, often for trivial missteps, while largely ignoring the felonies of the other tribe. He constantly calls his tribe names meant to be demeaning like “children” and “fiery liberals” while simultaneously lambasting them for calling “The Others” similarly sarcastic names. He becomes oddly bothered when science writers cannot explain complex physics topics such as quantum mechanics and relativity in simple terms that many of his ditsy followers (mostly named Anonymous) could understand. The sole proprietor of this archetype was writing a book of his own but ceased abruptly when it was alleged his ex-college roommate requested a happy ending from an Oregon masseuse. Contrary to popular opinion, this writer’s best work came not from the 20-month war on said ex-roommate, but his exposure of the populist sacred weasel Tim Russert. The scribe’s latest assault on the Believe-‘em-Alls make his more discerning followers (all 17 of them) wonder whether a rebirth of sorts might be underway.

      Delete
    2. Nicely delineated, professor. I would offer a caveat - assuming that this is a combox populated primarily by males, it might behoove us to actually pay attention to women, whose plaints have been dismissed, vilified, and quashed for time immemorial.

      As a straight male in the performing arts, I've witnessed the pernicious effects of, for want of a better phrase, 'the casting couch,' all of my adult life. In short, it is we men, gay or straight, who have a problem with power and its abuse. In allowing for voices of victims to be at long last heard and respected, we need not set aside our foundational presumptions of innocence but nonetheless recognize that the same abusers have gaslit their victims with the same mollifications since the dawn of civilization. How to reconcile those two perhaps irreconcilable notions - one of modern jurisprudence, the other of ancient biology? That would seem to be a question worth considering.

      Delete
    3. Sherrlock, some of us don't think you can blame crime on biology, ancient or otherwise.

      Delete
    4. Anon 3:41: Then some of you need to reconsider. Let's just take a look at a few numbers, shall we?

      The following is taken directly from FBI crime statistics:

      Males constituted 98.9% of those arrested for forcible rape
      Males constituted 87.9% of those arrested for robbery
      Males constituted 85.0% of those arrested for burglary
      Males constituted 83.0% of those arrested for arson.
      Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism.
      Males constituted 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft.
      Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.
      Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault
      (source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_66_arrests_suburban_areas_by_sex_2011.xls)

      And, gilding the lily, how many mass murderers, serial killers, and pedophiles are female? Again, a tiny minority.

      What in fuck do you think is the reason for crime, Anonymous? Bad upbringing? Nope. There are lots of awful women in the world; they just can't begin to compete with the evil men do.

      Delete
    5. And I left out:
      Murder and non-negligent homicide: again, men take the prize at nearly 88%.

      Delete
    6. Perhaps it's time to (re-)read O'Brien's talk to Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984 — "How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?" ("By making him suffer.") "Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. ... Power is not a means; it is an end. ... The object of power is power." — then turn to Colin Wilson's A Criminal History of Mankind [pdf] for details.

      Delete
    7. And so you think not only rape, but also murder, robbery, burglary, car-theft, arson, et al., are motivated by sex?

      You've never heard the idea that even rape/sexual assault is not a crime so much of sex but of power and control?

      Humanity is a sexually dimorphic species, like lions: males tend to be larger and stronger than females, particularly in upper-body strength, which is why they have traditionally supplied the hunters and warriors. The male hormone testosterone provides aggression, useful for that purpose, but with the unfortunate side-effect of also causing violence when and where it's less welcome, at home and in other civilian settings, thus crime.

      So, it's not sex-drive as such; not just the drive to have sex; but the drive to power, control, and violence.

      And you must know, to this, women also are not immune. Else Manson's family would have been all male, as all murderers would have been.

      Delete
    8. Raven, I'd suggest you read 'A Primate's Memoir' by Robert Sapolsky. A fair portion of it details his years documenting the lives of a baboon troop in Kenya. When the alpha males of the tribe all died off in one fell swoop, the females took over; the "culture" of the tribe changed utterly - and to date permanently. Matriarchal control resulted in what can only be described as sea shift to nurturing and pacifistic behaviors. Here's NYT article about the event and its aftermath: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/science/no-time-for-bullies-baboons-retool-their-culture.html

      For more of Sapolsky, read his magnificent, recently published opus about the structure of the brain, 'Behave.'

      Delete
    9. Thank you! For a SFictional (but human) quasi-parallel, you might in turn enjoy Sheri S. Tepper’s novel The Gate to Women’s Country [Wikipedia] [Amazon, ebook available] — though it takes a while to realize the actual underlying power structure....

      Delete
  8. Dude: ... it was alleged his ex-college roommate requested a happy ending from an Oregon masseuse.

    There ended up being two other such masseuse assertions, but — like the first, Molly Hagerty — they also were exposed as fakes.

    Not that this keeps them from all being cited endlessly just as though they were genuine; after all, "Whitewater" is still a meme, despite even Ken Starr's own horribly expensive report having ended with the whimper that no evidence could be found to support the allegations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hacking a phone, a server, a Database or a computer does not depend on programming language, but exploit the existing vulnerabilities. If you mean by create Windows virus/trojan/malware, them are generally written in Visual C++ (VC++), and you can learn it by buying books for basic knowledge and go to practice. so i think adrian lamo uses c plus or v plus for hacking.
    I don't know why every one talk about Nicholas Shields, I'm not the only Hacker online, but if you like to know what hackers use i can tell you , to hacking web site for example you need script python or Perl or ruby ... but its not the important part because first you should know what you will do and then it will be easy because maybe you will found some code in the internet like here Exploits Database by Offensive Security  , so there is a different between someone who hack by using tools and code already done and someone who found "zero days" bugs and expel hacking.


    For urgent requests for professional Hack Advice Or Hack Services, You can contact me directly via """"compositehacks@gmail.com""". I'm also trying out a new beta ticketing system, which can be accessed at "Composite Hacks & Co"

    YOU CAN ALSO CONTACT ME FOR CREDIT CARD TOP-UP: Its Still On-Going! 100% LEGIT

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hacking a phone, a server, a Database or a computer does not depend on programming language, but exploit the existing vulnerabilities. If you mean by create Windows virus/trojan/malware, them are generally written in Visual C++ (VC++), and you can learn it by buying books for basic knowledge and go to practice. so i think adrian lamo uses c plus or v plus for hacking.
    I don't know why every one talk about Nicholas Shields, I'm not the only Hacker online, but if you like to know what hackers use i can tell you , to hacking web site for example you need script python or Perl or ruby ... but its not the important part because first you should know what you will do and then it will be easy because maybe you will found some code in the internet like here Exploits Database by Offensive Security  , so there is a different between someone who hack by using tools and code already done and someone who found "zero days" bugs and expel hacking.


    For urgent requests for professional Hack Advice Or Hack Services, You can contact me directly via """"compositehacks@gmail.com""". I'm also trying out a new beta ticketing system, which can be accessed at "Composite Hacks & Co"

    YOU CAN ALSO CONTACT ME FOR CREDIT CARD TOP-UP: Its Still On-Going! 100% LEGIT

    ReplyDelete