THE THEAETETUS AND THEE: Did Nichols voice "justified true belief?"


Reporters, logicians won't speak: We've found ourselves drawn, again and again, to the start of David Brooks' new column this morning. 

(The column is non-political.)

In particular, we've been struck by the ways the column doesn't quite seem to "parse." (Doesn't quite seem to make sense.)

So much need for help from logicians, so little time! Headline included, the column starts like this:

BROOKS (9/3/21): You Are Not Who You Think You Are

You may think you understand the difference between seeing something and imagining it. When you see something it’s really there; when you imagine it, you make it up. That feels very different.

That intriguing headline drew us in. But just for starters, does that first paragraph parse?

In point of fact, when you "see" something, it is "really there." That's just the logic of the English language, a structure which has been developed "over the course of more than 1,400 years," building upon what went before.

When you see something, it is really there. That's just the logic of the language with which we speak to each other. 

Somewhat similarly:

If you "imagine" something, it's probably not "really there." Example:

If you see your boyfriend drive up in his car, your boyfriend is really there. If you imagine him driving up in his car, the chances are he's somewhere else.

The chances are he isn't really there. Most likely, you're just daydreaming, or wishing he could be there, or any one of a number of things.

Those situations don't feel "very different." The situations really are different, and that's just the meaning of words. 

But as Brooks continues, this difference is said to have generated a problem. The problem is said to be this:

BROOKS (continuing directly): The problem is that when researchers ask people to imagine something, like a tomato, and then give some of them a just barely visible image of a tomato, they find that the process of imagining it is hard to totally separate from the process of seeing it. In fact, they use a lot of the same brain areas.

Just for the record, at no point in the activity described has anyone seen a tomato. The subject has first been asked to imagine a tomato. He or she has then been shown (presumably, has been asked to look at) "a just barely visible image" of same.

The researcher finds that the subjects "use a lot of the same brain areas" in the course of these two activities. In this sense, the researcher is said to have found that "the process of imagining the tomato is hard to totally separate from the process of seeing it."

No one has actually seen a tomato, but this is what the researcher is now said to have found. Also, note the words "totally" and "hard:"

The researcher finds it hard to totally separate the one process from the other! At this point, we're slicing the lunch meat pretty thin. Brooks, who normally isn't like this, continues her meditation as shown:

BROOKS (continuing directly): And when you stop to think about it, that makes some sense. Your brain is locked in the pitch-black bony vault of your skull, trying to use scraps of information to piece together the world. Even when it’s seeing, it’s partly constructing what’s out there based on experience. “It turns out, reality and imagination are completely intermixed in our brain,” Nadine Dijkstra writes in Nautilus, “which means that the separation between our inner world and the outside world is not as clear as we might like to think.”

We grew up believing that “imagining” and “seeing” describe different mental faculties. But as we learn more about what’s going on in the mind, these concepts get really blurry really fast.

Our view? Something did "get really blurry really fast" here. But it wasn't anything we allegedly grew up believing.

Having stopped to think about it, Brooks finds that the researcher's finding—it's hard to totally separate seeing from imagining—does in fact make some sense. 

In our view, it's Brooks' thinking which has gone a bit blurry. We say that because he expresses his discovery as shown:

We grew up believing that “imagining” and “seeing” describe different mental faculties. 

In fact, we all grew up learning that “imagining” and “seeing” will typically be used to refer to different states of affairs. Along the way, did you ever find yourself believing that the terms refer to different "mental faculties?"

Whatever that term is supposed to mean, we're going to guess that you didn't.

Brooks isn't normally like this. That said, the start of this column shows what can happen—shows what does routinely happen—"when language goes on holiday," to quote the later Wittgenstein.

This sort of thing is especially likely to happen "when doing philosophy," the later Wittgenstein disconsolately said. But it also happens quite routinely in our normal political discourse.

In a slightly different world, logicians might step in to help us get a bit more clear about our new apparent discoveries. In our world, by way of contrast, the logicians tend to be engaged in debates like the one we featured yesterday. Werewolves of London again!

The Theaetetus is a principal field of battle for one of the main disputes between Plato’s interpreters. This is the dispute between Unitarians and Revisionists.

Unitarians argue that Plato’s works display a unity of doctrine and a continuity of purpose throughout. Unitarians include Aristotle, Proclus, and all the ancient and mediaeval commentators; Bishop Berkeley; and in the modern era, Schleiermacher, Ast, Shorey, Diès, Ross, Cornford, and Cherniss.

Revisionists retort that Plato’s works are full of revisions, retractations, and changes of direction. Eminent Revisionists include Lutoslawski, Ryle, Robinson, Runciman, Owen, McDowell, Bostock, and many recent commentators.

Unitarianism is historically the dominant interpretive tradition. Revisionism, it appears, was not invented until the text-critical methods, such as stylometry, that were developed in early nineteenth-century German biblical studies were transferred to Plato.

In the twentieth century, a different brand of Revisionism has dominated English-speaking Platonic studies. This owes its impetus to a desire to read Plato as charitably as possible, and a belief that a charitable reading of Plato’s works will minimise their dependence on the theory of Forms...

Twenty-four hundred years later, these academics can't quit Plato, or his Theaetetus! And good God:

As the actual world passes them by, the Revisionists allegedly act on "a desire to read Plato as charitably as possible"—on a desire to slide past the embarrassing silliness (and incoherence) of his so-called "theory of Forms!"

At least as portrayed by Plato, Socrates was so spectacularly annoying that he pretty much had to go. In Socrates' defense,  he at least seemed to be trying to "interrogate" the affairs of the day. We rarely see such reactions from modern-day practitioners in this lapsed academic field.

When's the last time you saw a logician comment on the endless follies of the public discourse? Simply put, it isn't done. Consider a recent case which, like so many others, has cried out for clarification.

We refer to the case of Rachel Nichols, who just last week got canceled. Rather, her daily cable TV sports show got canceled by the powers that be, with the strong suggestion that Nichols will never be seen on ESPN again.

This is modern-day "cancel culture" is the pre-existing literal sense! Headline included, NPR's account of the matter started off like this:

Rachel Nichols' ESPN Show Is Canceled After Her Comments About Maria Taylor

ESPN has removed Rachel Nichols from NBA coverage and has canceled her show The Jump, the network confirmed Thursday.

This comes nearly two months after Nichols' remarks became public in which she suggested that Maria Taylor was promoted because she is Black.


In early July, The New York Times reported on a recording of a conversation involving Nichols, an ESPN reporter. In the July 2020 recording, Nichols, who is white, is heard suggesting that Taylor got her job hosting the marquee program NBA Countdown during the NBA finals because she is Black.

"If you need to give her more things to do because you are feeling pressure about your crappy longtime record on diversity—which, by the way, I know personally from the female side of it—like, go for it," Nichols said in the recording. "Just find it somewhere else. You are not going to find it from me or taking my thing away."

NPR was discreet enough to disappear parts of the story. To wit:

The remarks in question were made during a personal phone conversation—a conversation Nichols believed to be private. 

Due to a technical snafu, the conversation was recorded at ESPN. An ESPN employee then took the tape of the private phone call and spread it all around.

Also this:

During the call, Nichols said that Taylor had been newly assigned to host NBA Countdown despite the fact that the assignment was contractually guaranteed to Nichols. As noted in the comments cited by NPR, Nichols seemed to believe that the switch had been made because ESPN had been "feeling pressure about [its] crappy longtime record on diversity."

How much of this was true? In particular, was the high-profile assignment in question contractually guaranteed to Nichols? Also, did ESPN replace Nichols in this ongoing role because Nichols is "white" and Taylor is "black?"

In part because of the way the New York Times has behaved, we can't answer those questions. To wit:

As it continues to report this matter, the Times has made no apparent attempt to learn if Nichols really did have the contractual guarantee to which she referred. 

Meanwhile, playing a bit of hero ball, the Times has continued reporting this matter in the manner shown:

DRAPER (8/26/21): ESPN has taken Rachel Nichols off its N.B.A. programming and canceled “The Jump,” the daily basketball show she has hosted for five years, the network confirmed Wednesday.

The show’s cancellation comes one month after The New York Times reported on disparaging comments made by Nichols about Maria Taylor, one of her colleagues at ESPN at the time. In a conversation with an adviser to the Lakers star LeBron James, Nichols, who is white, said that Taylor, who is Black, had been chosen to host 2020 N.B.A. finals coverage instead of her because ESPN executives were “feeling pressure” on diversity.

From beginning to end, the heroic Draper has said that Nichols came under fire because she had made "disparaging" or "demeaning" comments about Taylor. 

Other news orgs haven't made that claim as they've reported this matter. Nor is it clear why the heroic Draper did.

In the phone call she believed to be private, it's clear that Nichols made disparaging comments about ESPN's brass—about the corporate executives who eventually cancelled her last week. 

She said the channel, and its executives, had "a crappy longtime record on diversity." She said she herself was aware of this crappy record from the standpoint of gender inclusion.

Does ESPN have a crappy record on diversity? Inevitably, that's a matter of judgment. We wouldn't know how to score the claim, and the claim isn't being widely analyzed as part of this brouhaha. 

That said, we have no idea why Draper keeps claiming that Nichols made disparaging comments about Taylor. Nichols didn't say that Taylor had done anything wrong in this matter. In fact, she praised Taylor's voluminous work during the course of the phone call, a call she believed to be private.

Rather plainly, Nichols was criticizing the fellows who run ESPN; she never criticized Taylor. Playing a bit of hero ball, Draper and his editors keep saying that Nichols disparaged Taylor. The usual mob has run alongside, howling in the streets.

Please note:

NPR didn't claim, in its report, that Nichols disparaged Taylor. Neither did the Washington Post in its more disciplined report last week. 

The Washington Post simply reported what Nichols had said during the personal phone call. Only the Times positioned itself out in front of the wholly predictable mob.

At the reliably gruesome Daily Beast, the indictment of Nichols on this score was even more overstated. But that's the way our species' mobs have always worked, all the way back to the way the mob eventually went after Socrates.

(Plato discusses the "wickedness" of that behavior in the Seventh Letter.)

Borrowing from Brooks' headline, our mainstream journalists are not always who we may think they are. In this instance, Draper has been more the instigator of a mob, less a competent journalist.

Surely, any journalist can see the nature of this problem, but they won't be speaking up. The reason? Did you see the way Steven Pinker was attacked last summer when he used the term "urban crime" in the headline of a tweet?

(Speaking with Jonathan Rauch on C-Span, Pinker said that attacks of that type can't really harm tenured professors like him.  He said the attacks do serve to encourage silence from everyone else.)

Our journalists aren't going to speak about this. Our logicians and our ethicists won't be speaking up either. Our philosophers walked off their posts a long time ago, if they were ever there to begin with.

That said, this case is especially striking with respect to our logicians and "epistemologists." The reason would be this:

The Nichols case presents a perfect example of the traditional framework in which knowledge is said to be "justified true belief." You could almost bring in "the Gettier problem!" (For links, see below.) Just consider this:

Based on what she said in her private telephone call, Nichols seemed to believe that she'd been booted from a plum assignment on the basis of race.

(Was the assignment contractually guaranteed? We don't have the slightest idea. Nor has Draper shown any sign of trying to find out.)

Nichols voiced a certain belief. Obviously, it's possible that her belief may have been true. You'd have to be out of your mind to doubt that possibility.

(Did ESPN make the switch on that basis? In other words, did Nichols have a true belief? We have no way of knowing. Draper hasn't shown the slightest sign of trying to find out.)

Final point! Nichols is a long-standing ESPN insider. Did she have some inside knowledge which might justify her apparent belief? Did she have substantial reason for thinking her claim was true?

That's an obvious possibility! As such, it's possible that Nichols, in her private call, was voicing a justified true belief!

(Or not! Thanks to the existence of journalists like Draper, we live in a world where little effort will ever be made to find out. Storyline will prevail.)

The Nichols case falls into a framework our lethargic logicians love. That said, no logician has stepped forward to address this case, and no logician ever will.

What actually happened at ESPN? We have no way of knowing! But those of us in our liberal tribe have a Storyline we currently love, and people like Draper are playing hero ball as they run in the streets.

We watch a lot  of ESPN debate / discussion shows. Nichols was never a favorite of ours. 

That said, our failing nation has a crying need for help when it comes to the logic of race. Also, the behavior of people like Draper is helping doom our self-impressed tribe, and our failing society as a whole, to an onrushing perdition.

Our journalists aren't going to speak. Neither will the logicians. They're too busy batting around Plato's "theory of forms!"

A modern nation can't function this way. On Fox, The Others are (accurately) told that our tribe does function this way. This hastens our headlong decline.

Our academic elites may not be "who we think they are." Please write about that, David Brooks!

Concerning the Gettier problem: Concerning "justified true belief," see last Friday's report.

Included is a brief overview of "the Gettier problem." As you read about this embarrassing silliness, don't let the children look on!


  1. Thank you, dear Bob, for your David Brooks skit.

    Dembots imagining that they have a brain and are capable of thinking are really very comical.

    1. I really want to thank Dr Emu for saving my marriage. My wife really treated me badly and left home for almost 3 month this got me sick and confused. Then I told my friend about how my wife has changed towards me. Then she told me to contact Dr Emu that he will help me bring back my wife and change her back to a good woman. I never believed in all this but I gave it a try. Dr Emu casted a spell of return of love on her, and my wife came back home for forgiveness and today we are happy again. If you are going through any relationship stress or you want back your Ex or Divorce husband you can contact his whatsapp +2347012841542 or email website: Https:// Https://

    2. Mobile phone is capable of making millions if you are smart enough to invest in Stock/bitcoin through the help of an Expert, Mrs Mary, she will help you on how to invest and make good profits. I invested $5,000 with her help and I was able to make $32,000 within the period of intensive trading. How many hours a day do you spend on your phone and how productive are those hours? Contact her today to gain financial freedom. Email:

  2. "Does ESPN have a crappy record on diversity?"

    Wtf does it even mean, dear Bob?

    Isn't ESPN a sports channel that is supposed to broadcast sporting events and shit? What the fuck does it have to do with liberal claptrap? Please, dear Bob...

  3. "If you "imagine" something, it's probably not "really there."

    Somerby is incorrect about this. When you imagine something, it may be really there or it may not. There is no probability involved because that depends on the circumstances of your imagining.

    If you look at an apple sitting on a table, then close your eyes and see it in your imagination, the apple is still "really there." Similarly, if you imagine your boyfriend driving up in his car, if you do not look out the window, he may or may not be really there, depending on circumstances that have nothing to do with your use of imagination.

    It is possible to imagine things that have never existed but also possible to imagine mundane things that certainly exist. Imagination is important to mental representation and we mentally represent things in order to think about them and talk about them with others. The fact that we can imagine things that both exist and do not exist is important to our ability to think about a lone gone past, a future, ideals, fantasies, and possibilities. Imagination operates independent of reality but it is not reserved for thinking about things that are unlikely to exist, not real or not present. It is used visually to think about all situations.

    What Brooks is saying is that we can tell the difference between reality and imagination but that isn't because of the content of what we imagine or its likelihood to be real, but because we monitor our own internal thought processes and can tell whether we have internally generated an image or received that image on the retina and transmitted it to the visual cortex via the optic nerve. Things that are imagined instead of "seen" do not involve the eyes, just activation of the visual cortex via other pathways (e.g., from memory or areas where objects are mentally represented in areas adjacent to the visual cortex).

    Brooks understands this. Somerby does not. Someone with a basic education in brain functioning would understand it. That was not available to Somerby during his high school days (too long ago) and he has apparently not read anything about it since then. That's why he claims to be befuddled by what Brooks has written.

  4. "Just for the record, at no point in the activity described has anyone seen a tomato. The subject has first been asked to imagine a tomato. He or she has then been shown (presumably, has been asked to look at) "a just barely visible image" of same."

    There are many experiments confirming the existence of subliminal perception. That is, "just barely seeing something" because it is presented too quickly or in a manner that does not permit conscious awareness that an object has been seen, even though the eyes and visual cortex have registered an image. People's cognition is affected, even though they are consciously unaware that they have seen that image.

    This is what is going on with the study Brooks describes. People will report that they have only imagined the tomato because they are not consciously aware that it was presented to them visually. This capacity to respond to barely glimpsed stimuli, despite being unaware of seeing them, aids our survival because processing in conscious awareness is much slower than perceptual response to an image. If someone glimpsed a predator indistinctly and had to wait for consciousness to register what was seen and react to it, that person might be dead. Instead, they can glimpse and react reflexively and only register later (if at all) that they were in danger. The physical response to such a subliminal stimulus is automatic because automatic processing much faster and that extra time might be the difference between survival or death.

    The study Brooks describes is not particularly new information and is consistent with older imaging studies that show that the same areas used when seeing are also active when imagining the same thing.

  5. "Brooks, who normally isn't like this, continues her meditation as shown"

    In the spirit of imagining, Somerby appears to have changed David Brook's gender.

  6. "This sort of thing is especially likely to happen "when doing philosophy," the later Wittgenstein disconsolately said. But it also happens quite routinely in our normal political discourse."

    In the absence of rudimentary knowledge of neuroscience, Somerby makes this a trick of language (bending the meaning of the word "seen," presumably and drags in poor Wittgenstein. This has nothing to do with language or Wittgenstein. It has to do with defining sight as involving the non-cortical parts of the visual system (eyes, retina, optic nerve, perhaps the thalamus) and requiring access to an image by conscious awareness.

    Much of natural philosophy was developed before there was factual information about the workings of the brain (or other parts of the body). Introspection gives access to the contents of consciousness, but most processing occurs outside of conscious awareness and is not available to those theorizing about how we think. Modern philosophy incorporates new findings. Wittgenstein and the early Greeks did not have access to the same info. Somerby would do better to read modern philosophers whose theories include cognitive science.

  7. So much for "musings on the mainstream press corp"

    1. Is that you Centrist?

      Next time, try reading the entire post and the take down of Draper's deceptive Times column.

    2. Draper is only deceptive if you believe Somerby's interpretation, but there is no reason to.

    3. Nichols acts as if she is entitled to ESPN assignments that must be earned. If those assignments are being taken away, it isn't because of pressure to meet diversity goals, but because Nichols isn't performing.

      Somerby never likes explanations that include racial elements, so of course he sides with Nichols instead of Taylor. Draper is merely presenting Taylor's viewpoint instead of Nichols'. Somerby never says why he believes Nichols more than Taylor, but it seems pretty obviously related to race too.

  8. Does Somerby seriously think that logicians should be concerning themselves with the problems of Nichols? Why? That is not their job at all.

    Some philosophy majors do graduate and become mediators (as a profession). They might conceivably be asked to mediate a dispute such as that Nichols was involved in. But unless someone asks them to get involved, why would they speak out and destroy their perceived neutrality and objectivity?

    Somerby seems to think that there are no people besides logicians capable of assessing and judging complex situations. Our courts do this routinely. So do juries (which manage to arrive at reasonably fair decisions and a comprehensive consideration of evidence despite being untrained in that task, because of group processes that have been extensively studied by forensic psychologists and those who study decision making). Somerby's lack of faith in human judgment is NOT supported by research.

    Ultimately, the voters make decisions that produce reasonable results, as long as their process is not interfered with by manipulation of our democratic system. That's why access to good information (via journalists and educators) and a free press is needed and why the meddling by foreign powers and via propaganda needs to be controlled.

    But it is almost as if Somerby wants to replace the wisdom existing in our society with an authoritarian logician who will tell us what to believe and do, all while criticizing all sources of expertise without our society. Somerby's longing for someone to tell him what to think may be why Trump has appealed to him since 2015, and why blindly following a charismatic leader such as Bernie was easier for him than thinking about the things Hillary, Obama, or the 2020 Democratic candidates had to say. It might be nice to have a master logician tell us all what to think, but that way lies danger. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to think for oneselves.

  9. Bob,

    Even an amoeba has an avoidance response. The words “David Brooks” should send a normally-functioning organism the other way. You might want to get this checked out.

    By the way, how much of your hard-earned dough do you waste to enable this imbecile’s brie habit? Doesn’t that make you part of the problem?

  10. "That said, we have no idea why Draper keeps claiming that Nichols made disparaging comments about Taylor. Nichols didn't say that Taylor had done anything wrong in this matter. In fact, she praised Taylor's voluminous work during the course of the phone call, a call she believed to be private."

    Somerby has no idea why calling someone a diversity hire is disparaging to them! Nichols said that Taylor got her assignment by being black instead of being competent. That's what was insulting to Taylor about Nichols' remark.

    And yes, Nichols did criticize ESPN decision-making and her bosses, but the fact that an ESPN employee leaked her telephone conversations means that she wasn't well liked by her coworkers either. Complaining about management and antagonizing other workers are sure ways to get yourself fired (demoted, laid off, overlooked for promotion or otherwise penalized) in any company in the USA. Nichols own stupidity and bitterness were the reasons she has lost her assignments, not anything Maria Taylor did, and not so-called cancel culture, a conservative shibboleth attributed to the left but exhibited as much by the right as anywhere else.

    Anyone who was a fan of Maria Taylor would be antagonized by Nichols' ill-advised remarks. That would tend to diminish popularly of Nichols among her viewers and it seems likely that her ratings declined and that may be the reason for removing her from her visible position on screen at ESPN.

    Somerby doesn't seem to be able to recognize a racially motivated slight when it occurs. Being white, why would he? That doesn't mean such slights are imaginary. Taylor felt maligned and subsequently left ESPN for NBC. It would make sense if ESPN felt that it could not appear to reward Nichols for her disparaging comment about Taylor. That might cost ESPN viewership among those who are able to empathize with what Taylor felt about that comment.

    Somerby seems to think that being a woman in a male-dominated field entitles a woman to disparage other minorities, exempts them from civility because they too have been discriminated against. It doesn't work that way. If Nichols felt disadvantaged, attacking her female competition by questioning her competence isn't the way to get ahead. Women have seen this dynamic before and that too may have contributed to the dislike of Nichols and her removal from her assignments after making her ill-advised rant. Many women feel that women as a group should stick together and help each other. Nichols clearly wasn't doing that.

  11. Believing something doesn't make it true or justified.

    Somerby has spent a lot of time wondering whether Donald Trump believes his own "lies". There is quite a bit of evidence that he knows he is lying and does it deliberately, but also that he tends to believe what he wants to hear and what comes from people he trusts (for being wealthy or successful), without applying any specific truth tests to his ideas.

    Somerby seems to want to give Trump a pass because he actually believes stupid things, despite his failure to listen to experts and his unwillingness to examine his own beliefs. That isn't enough for most thinking people.

    But this does illustrate the fault in Somerby's self-serving misinterpretation of what little philosophy he reads these days.

  12. Here is an interesting report about studies of wealth inequality that control for class and demonstrate that there is still disadvantage for African Americans in mortgages and home-ownership after eliminating class-based explanations. It comes down to an impact of credit agency scores (such as FICO), the algorithms they use, and the impact of credit ratings on a variety of aspects of financial life that tend to disadvantage black people compared to similarly poor white people.

    I know Somerby will not read this, but perhaps it will open the eyes of others who wish to attribute financial injustice entirely to class without considering race.

    1. This study is bogus. We can tell for sure by looking at actual results. If blacks needed to be extra credit-worthy to obtain a loan, then blacks would default less often than whites and Asians. But, that's not the case

  13. "Nationally, covid-19 deaths have climbed steadily in recent weeks, hitting a seven-day average of about 1,500 a day Thursday, after falling to the low 200s in early July"

    All that complaining Somerby did about how reporters were discussing the rolling 7-day average for covid deaths, and here were are again!

    Interesting that Somerby never talks about covid itself, just the way those ratty reporters report things. As if that were more important than the human lives being lost to preventable covid death.

    Somerby studied philosophy but still cannot understand how to set priorities. Is that lack of wisdom or lack of knowledge?


  14. What a great content we have here buy moonrocks online as we browse we also see this blog too and is pretty good buy moon rocks online we also realize that blog are good for business we also bring buy martian moonrocks online best blog to visit
    buy grenadine cookies online thanks for checking on this post


  15. How To Get Your Ex Lover/Partner/Boyfriend/Girlfriend/Wife Or Husband Back

    I was married for 16 years to a loving mother and wife. We had 2 children together who are now 11 & 13. I reconnected with an old girlfriend from college on Facebook and we began an affair and I left my wife. The woman I had an affair with is a wonderful woman and I love her too and our kids had begun accepting the situation and my wife has kind of moved on, but not in love with the man she is seeing. I thought I fell out of love with my wife and I felt terrible about what I did to her - she is a good woman and I don't know what came over me. I decided to try and get her back and I was recommended to OYINBO for help to get reunited with my wife and within 48 hours after I made contact with OYINBO my wife decided to work things out with me and now we are back together with our children living as one happy family. I really don't know the words to use in appreciation of what OYINBO did for me but I will say thank you sir for reuniting I and my family back. For those in trying times with their marriages or relationship can communicate with OYINBO through the below in formations.

    Whats App/call/text: +2348074066640

  16. Mobile phone is capable of making millions if you are smart enough to invest in Stock/bitcoin through the help of an Expert, Mrs Mary, she will help you on how to invest and make good profits. I invested $5,000 with her help and I was able to make $32,000 within the period of intensive trading. How many hours a day do you spend on your phone and how productive are those hours? Contact her today to gain financial freedom. Email:

  17. This was a really nice surprise. I saw this on this weblog, awesome. สมัครสมาชิก 123betting