tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post2745860796116772074..comments2023-10-18T03:22:50.455-07:00Comments on truthjihad.com blog: Untruther Michael Shermer Caught Posing as Professor!Kevin Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-20283936086787961192016-02-08T01:29:36.054-08:002016-02-08T01:29:36.054-08:00lol whylol whyTara Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503826029879767463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-87093248256932028052016-02-08T01:28:53.242-08:002016-02-08T01:28:53.242-08:00Sounds like u follow everything Shermer says U sho...Sounds like u follow everything Shermer says U should be skeptical of some skeptics We are dealing with human beings here who we can see in history have lied cheated and the government has lied before.just like Shermer says he can connect information to prove hololcost we can connect factual information on government proven lies ie tonka bay look it up Tara Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14503826029879767463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-71207913348571570322014-02-22T03:11:17.103-08:002014-02-22T03:11:17.103-08:00If you're going to respond to people who disag...If you're going to respond to people who disagree with you, at least learn what the word skeptic means. It's like you DON'T WANT to be taken seriously. I guess if you did anything but preach to the choir your worldview would collapse...<br /><br />it's analogous to the music snob who doesn't want their favorite band to be popular, but who always complains about the band's obscurity. <br /><br />nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10426421924443604117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-3903462011469835662010-12-23T10:19:51.881-08:002010-12-23T10:19:51.881-08:00Mock the conspiracy theorists like the illuminati/...Mock the conspiracy theorists like the illuminati/freemasons want you to do.....<br /><br />9/11 was in fact, a demented and Masonic Ritual. I would have rather accept that 9/11 was for oil than that of a cult's evil, sick plan to kill innocent people just to slaughter more innocent people. <br /><br />All they do is mock but they have no proof........<br /><br />Even your famous idols were aware.....<br />Hollywood was aware.<br /><br /><br />Yutube: 9/11 in Hollywood. You'll see it is quite a popular number. No use in arguing, if you're not going to do your research.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~><br />Conspiracy Theorist and proud of it, and no, I never wanted to feel like I belong. I just want justice.<br /><br />And where is Osama? i haven't heard his name in awhile? Wasn't the whole intent to get Osama? Now we are trying to create peace in the middle east? They aren't even consistent with their lie. And you people wonder why people would ever question their government. <br /><br />This "Professor" is a fraud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-56128915399177383432010-10-22T17:34:19.128-07:002010-10-22T17:34:19.128-07:00Scatty, you correctly point out the ONE AND ONLY w...Scatty, you correctly point out the ONE AND ONLY way that it is possible for Shermer to be the innocent party in all of this: the CGU website MUST be incorrect.<br /><br />In the comments above, as you can see, both Kevin and I have promised to publicly say "I WAS WRONG" if any of you can manage to prove that the CGU website is incorrect - by simply having them correct it.<br /><br />So, the task before you is very simple. Simply call or write the CGU and ask them to put correct information up.<br /><br />Isn't it odd, though, that Shermer hasn't done that? I mean, we know he took the time to take out "of economics" from BOTH his online bio and his online CV, and at the same time someone with a California IP address made the same change on his Wikipedia page.<br /><br />So, it's clear that, despite his jocularly twitter taunting when this story first broke, he is actually concerned about this. But then why not have the CGU "correct" their website?<br /><br />Why say that he has "nothing to offer" to prove his credentials?<br /><br />It was really, completely settled when Interim President Hough said Shermer has no appointment at CGU, term or otherwise.<br /><br />Remember, outing Shermer as a liar doesn't change any realities. There'd still be the irrelevancy of god-existence (sorry Kevin), creationism will still be junk science, and Deepak Chopra will still be a dork.<br /><br />But when someone goes around delivering talks with topics like "Why Do People Lie?" then they'd better be prepared for some scrutiny to see if they themselves might be the liars.<br /><br />And in this case, despite your attempts to exonerate The Prophet, Shermer's been outed as a liar - someone who inflates his academic credentials. The funny thing is he never even needed to do it; he just took it that far because he knew followers like you would fall for it without question - exactly like the cultists he condemns.<br /><br />Open your mind to TRUE scepticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-75563609701695410862010-10-22T14:53:18.578-07:002010-10-22T14:53:18.578-07:00Scatty,
Google obviously isn't going to be up-...Scatty,<br />Google obviously isn't going to be up-to-date on who's teaching what when. <br />FYI, Adjunct Professor posts are temporary ("term") appointments meaning the person is only an Adjunct Professor while teaching that class. As soon as the semester is over, (s)he is no longer an Adjunct Professor. If you Google, you'll find zillions of ex-Adjunct Professors mentioned under their former titles. <br />As for posting comments, there are two orders: (1) the order they come in, and (2) the order they get approved and thus posted. Since I'm not always on-line, the two orders don't always match. I will occasionally change the order, as was done to your post, in order to prevent confusion about who's saying what to whom. To wit, if someone responds to a Scatty post, I approve the response, and then later an<br />other Scatty post intervenes BEFORE the answer, I will move the 2nd Scatty post to put it AFTER the answer to the first Scatty post. Got it?Kevin Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-46974052309474857822010-10-22T14:36:58.689-07:002010-10-22T14:36:58.689-07:00Interesting question. I'm assuming that what&#...Interesting question. I'm assuming that what's on the website is not necessarily what's in the employment records. I googled "adjunct professor at claremont" and found at least two people who were not mentioned on the website of the department they work for at all. That was me that posted the question above, by the way, and my google password didn't work, so afterwards when I wondered why the president of the university had referred to Shermer as "professor", I posted it under my google password. Do you only post comments once you've approved them and thought of a good answer for them? -ScattyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-68911990686708220792010-10-22T11:18:30.040-07:002010-10-22T11:18:30.040-07:00I have to point out that this is the EXACT argumen...I have to point out that this is the EXACT argument that Barry Zwicker predicited Shermer would make - playing with capital letters - adjunct professor vs. Adjunct Professor.<br /><br />Everyone reading this thread has to realize one thing: Shermer's own website has been altered - presumably by Shermer - at exactly the same time this controversy broke out. CLEARLY he has been calling himself "Adjunct Professor of Economics" from 2007 to 2010 and CLEARLY that WAS NOT TRUE....BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.<br /><br />Now, why does Hough refer to Shermer as "Professor Shermer?" From Shermer's own online bio:<br /><br />"He [Shermer] was a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College (1989–1998), California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College."<br /><br />Read that again... he WAS (past tense) a college Professor, so Hough gives him the academic courtesy of calling him Professor. <br /><br />However, he DOES NOT hold the position of "Adjunct Professor" or "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU and HE IS LYING about it.<br /><br />Scatty/Anonymous - first of all thank you for attempting to make a reasoned argument - that is something that is CONSISTENTLY and sadly missing from Shermer's supporters, and it's really refreshing to see you attempt to argue the facts using logic and reason rather than with name calling and illogic.<br /><br />You have obviously done a lot of digging to make the case that, at a minimum, Shermer can legitimately claim the title of "adjunct professor,", but you know perfectly well, FROM THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, that the CGU Economics website displays a list of "Adjunct Professors" and that Shermer is not on it and that is listed ONLY as a "Senior Research Fellow."<br /><br />How then can you justify Shermer's current claim - on his own website - that he is an "Adjunct Professor" (with caps) at CGU? How can you justify that he called himself "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU from 2007 to 2010?<br /><br />I ask you to look just as deeply at yourself. Is it scepticism you are interested in, or Scepticism, with Shermer as your Prophet? Capitals matter, right? And religion is powerful stuff.<br /><br />In the latest video, we see the email where Shermer says flat out that he has NOTHING TO OFFER to prove his title is legitimate. How long are you going to continue to stand by a man that is damaging to your cause?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-20065351909749773522010-10-22T10:40:26.779-07:002010-10-22T10:40:26.779-07:00Scatty, I'm glad to see that you have conceded...Scatty, I'm glad to see that you have conceded the point that Shermer is not any kind of professor. <br /><br />So why WOULD Hough muddy the waters?<br /><br />As Barrie Zwicker wrote, "Interim President Hough may not relish a minor scandal which could reflect badly on himself and the U as well as Shermer, and hurt Hough’s chances of being named permanent President, for instance." Does that answer your question?<br /><br />I am not sure what a "term position" is at Claremont. Normally Adjunct Professor positions ARE term positions, meaning:<br /><br />"These appointments are part-time, for a specified, limited term no longer than one year at a time." http://www.hr.ubc.ca/faculty_relations/recruitmentguide/titles/without_review.html<br /><br />If "term" means "limited-term," and Shermer neither has a permanent nor a term position, that means he doesn't have any position.Kevin Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-57788235922853601822010-10-22T10:30:25.262-07:002010-10-22T10:30:25.262-07:00Why does Hough refer to him as "Professor She...Why does Hough refer to him as "Professor Shermer" if he is not any kind of professor (adjunct or otherwise)? Also, the fact that he does not hold a term or permanent position does not mean that he is not an adjunct professor - these aren't permanent or term positions. -ScattyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-57355726659663908012010-10-22T06:22:43.910-07:002010-10-22T06:22:43.910-07:00Nice try, anonymous! But you lose, and here's ...Nice try, anonymous! But you lose, and here's why.<br /><br />First, Shermer called himself an Adjunct Professor OF ECONOMICS. Even if you were right and he were an Adjunct Professor, he would still have been lying and misrepresenting himself, because he most certainly has NEVER been an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont.<br /><br />Worse, he doesn't even fit the definition of Adjunct Professor you've provided. To meet this definition, Shermer would have to fit all of the criteria, including "has one or more courses at the Employer assigned to him or her" AND be "identified in the Employer's employment records as an Adjunct Professor." We have already shown that he is NOT identified in the Employer's employment records as an Adjunct Professor. Instead, he is identified as a Research Fellow. Therefore he is not, according to this definition, an Adjunct Professor.<br /><br />Additionally, the letter from President Hough states:<br /><br />"Michael Shermer assists Professor Paul Zak of the Economics department in an occasional single course in the transdisciplinary studies program of the University. He does not hold any term or permanent appointment in the University."<br /><br />Has Shermer himself (not Zak with help from Shermer) had "one or more courses at the Employer assigned to him" at all times that he has claimed to be an Adjunct Professor - meaning throughout most of the past several years?<br /><br />If so, he would still not be an Adjunct Professor (and certainly not an Adjunct Professor of Economics) unless his employer's records identified him as such. They don't, so he isn't.<br /><br />I very much doubt that he has had a course or courses assigned to him at all times during the past several years. I think he's been going around lying about himself and inflating his credentials and cashing in on the cachet of the word "professor" not only without actually being one - we've already established that, since the employer's records show he is a Research Fellow, not a Professor - but without even holding a teaching appointment at the time he so bills himself! Move over, Quincy Adams Wagstaff - here comes Michael Shermer.Kevin Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-59951602915670852132010-10-22T05:56:57.176-07:002010-10-22T05:56:57.176-07:00Shermer is being shown up for the fraud that he is...Shermer is being shown up for the fraud that he is!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-64410236389821655722010-10-21T11:57:26.485-07:002010-10-21T11:57:26.485-07:00http://www.cgu.edu/include/handbook/Faculty%20Empl...http://www.cgu.edu/include/handbook/Faculty%20Employment%20Status%20Definitions.pdf<br />defines an adjunct professor as:<br />"An Employee who is employed by the Employer pursuant to an agreement in an exempt salaried position working up to ten hours per course per week for a 16-week period, who has one or more courses at the Employer assigned to him or her, who is responsible for teaching such course or courses, whose responsibilities do not include research or community service, whose current period of employment will not be considered for purposes of determining whether he or she is eligible for tenure at the Employer, and who is identified in the Employer’s employment records as an Adjunct Professor."<br /><br />So, it seems that based on the fact that Michael Shermer teaches a class at the university and is listed as a research fellow, he is entitled to call himself an adjunct professor, whether he is listed under adjunct faculty or not. It's what's on the faculty's employment records that matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-51701465655619935092010-10-17T16:26:29.711-07:002010-10-17T16:26:29.711-07:00Here is our latest report on Michael Shermer: http...Here is our latest report on Michael Shermer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJftglWFUBM<br /><br />Joshua BlakeneyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-79121613810643588442010-10-17T12:07:21.205-07:002010-10-17T12:07:21.205-07:00http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.com/2010/10/micha...http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.com/2010/10/michael-shermer-misrepresenting.htmlScootleRoyalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142463679339512400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-40154958013370480152010-10-16T20:50:45.326-07:002010-10-16T20:50:45.326-07:00(continued...)
"They repeat uncorroborated g...(continued...)<br /><br />"They repeat uncorroborated gossipy information and rumors about their topic and claim that it’s being 'suppressed'... They rabidly yap about it endlessly... to their family and acquaintances and rudely dominate the conversations they have with normal people who are too polite to tell them to buzz off."<br /><br />Sadly, this is, indeed, the cross that the fringes have to bear. Unpopular truths are – unpopular! Are we, then, to shut up about them? Mr. Shermer would have us all docile sheep, snug under Big Brother's umbrella.<br /><br /><br />"It’s been going on for millennia. People crawl out of the woodwork with conspiracy theories every time there’s a dramatic and distressing public event. It’s predictable, but also boring and depressing to see people being so stupid without having the slightest awareness that they’re acting like idiots." <br /><br />His whole diatribe is saturated in derogatory epithets. Why? Delete them and you are left with a mostly fair appraisal of the perils of the fringe – that jumble of alternate theories off which the mainstream must feed to sustain itself, or stagnate and die. Edited, this last paragraph reads “Mankind is forever creating new theories in the effort to explain Black Swan events. This is a necessary dynamic of human evolution, against which the mainstream must fight tooth and nail, to ensure only the best theories survive." <br /><br />Michael Shermer, invested heavily in a corrupt status quo, is fighting a rearguard action against more powerfully explanatory ideas. The fact that he has had to descend ever further into ad hominem rhetoric to sustain his argument bodes ill for his future.Pablohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02115475321255577337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-10570208447675009172010-10-16T20:50:07.062-07:002010-10-16T20:50:07.062-07:00Andy quotes Shermer -
"...9/11 Truthers [are...Andy quotes Shermer -<br /><br />"...9/11 Truthers [are] people whose actual accomplishments have fallen far short of their own belief in their abilities... they are for the most part well below average in documented accomplishments."<br /><br />But 9/11 Truthers are at least as prolific in their writings as those who support the government's theory! So, by “documented accomplishments” Shermer must be referring to MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS. What Mr. Shermer is saying, then, is that popular beliefs get mainstream media coverage, where unpopular beliefs do not. I think this is something we can all agree with.<br /><br /><br />"They’re all going to disappear when they die without leaving the slightest trace on the world..."<br /><br />Shermer is saying that this is all about fame and recognition. Truth, then, is a popularity contest. There is a lot of wisdom in this, but Mr. Shermer would be the last to admit it, for he continues... <br /><br />"They can’t admit it, of course, but they are driven by a sick need to feel important that is stymied by the fact that they’re so irrational, unpalatable and weak-minded personally that they couldn’t even get elected to the local animal control board."<br /><br />Why is our need to feel important “sick"? Pushing unpopular theories out of a belief in their truth strikes me as a healthier way to seek the recognition we all crave, than does inflating, or inventing, one’s own achievements. Right, Mr. Shermer?<br /><br /><br />"So they latch onto something that makes them feel important... They gather together and tell each other ghost stories... They publicly harass people who have actually accomplished something... It’s like an adrenaline addiction, a stimulating drug they can create internally." <br /><br />This is hypocrisy. Mr. Shermer has hitched his own vaulting ambition to whatever will advance it, and from this dubious vantage point is kicking the faces of those who have chosen a nobler path to the same goal. <br /><br /><br />"No government conspiracy actually exists"<br /><br />Here lies the core evil of Mr. Shermer's position: the endless repetition of a belief, stated as an axiom: the truth is self-evident, and therefore requires no proof. <br /><br /><br />"For them, it’s just safe fun to...engender panic and fear wherever they go."<br /><br />But those who sow this panic profitably are the only people in the 9/11 Truth movement whom Shermer admires! At the start he singles out “a few dynamic and enterprising ‘prophets’ who gather a following of these individuals and make a good living doing so”. In Shermer’s world money=success=good. Truth is what sells.Pablohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02115475321255577337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-42386465027131586062010-10-15T17:31:02.026-07:002010-10-15T17:31:02.026-07:00Maroons and Ramulak radiation disseminators. lol.Maroons and Ramulak radiation disseminators. lol.Ardennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-81126772914344635222010-10-15T15:40:36.362-07:002010-10-15T15:40:36.362-07:00Thanks, Kevin, for hanging in there against such a...Thanks, Kevin, for hanging in there against such an attack of maliciousness. I've listened to several of Shermer's "debates" where his only "arguments" consist of ad-hominem attacks coupled with constantly shifting the subject again and again when his "points" are shown to be fallacious.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06959335730839448964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-29386447252377860972010-10-15T11:00:28.749-07:002010-10-15T11:00:28.749-07:00nice rap, Kevin...... :) !nice rap, Kevin...... :) !DJ Green Arrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14405481887616898578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-55549191623816431472010-10-13T17:03:10.999-07:002010-10-13T17:03:10.999-07:00As usual, the truthers win on logic and evidence (...As usual, the truthers win on logic and evidence (as well as wit and style), while the untruthers win on insults, obfuscations, irrelevancies, and assaults on the English language.Kevin Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-11662855830000030032010-10-13T14:12:35.467-07:002010-10-13T14:12:35.467-07:00Ooops, just read Kevin's comment where he esse...Ooops, just read Kevin's comment where he essentially makes the same challenge.<br /><br />So, once again, it's time for the "Skeptics" to put up or shut up.<br /><br />If you can get CGU to say - authoritatively - that Shermer is an "Adjunct Professor," Kevin will publicly say he's wrong, as will I (fwiw).<br /><br />What are YOU going to do if we all find out that it was YOU that's been wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-47606780100832784722010-10-13T13:44:09.858-07:002010-10-13T13:44:09.858-07:00Len, thank you for at least taking the time and *t...Len, thank you for at least taking the time and *trying* to answer the challenge.<br /><br />You know as well as I do that the pages you have come up with are newsletters which have not been fact checked. They probably went to Shermer's own website where he makes the statement that he is an "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU and took it at face value. (Ooops, Shermer removed "of economics" two nights ago, but the "Adjuct Professor" remains.)<br /><br />You and I also know the following:<br /><br />The CGU site lists all "Adjunct Professors" in the Economics department. Shermer is not on the list.<br /><br />The CGU site lists all "Senior Research Fellows" in the department. Shermer *is* on the list.<br /><br />From this, a LOGICAL, RATIONAL person would conclude that there are two possibilities:<br /><br />either a) Shermer is a Senior Research Fellow, and not an Adjunct Professor<br /><br />or b) the CGU website is incorrect or out of date.<br /><br />The CGU website is copyright 2009, two years after Shermer's claim which began in 2007.<br /><br />So that leaves you with one last option: The CGU website is incorrect.<br /><br />So, I encourage you and the rest of Shermer's fans to contact CGU and ask them to put the correct information on the site.<br /><br />If that happens and the CGU site lists Shermer as an Adjunct Professor, I will say the magic words "I was wrong and you were right" - not that it means much as an Anon but I will say it.<br /><br />Now, will YOU say the magic words when CGU tells you their site is already correct? Or are you the very small person I suspect you are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-72186571447545066762010-10-13T13:28:19.063-07:002010-10-13T13:28:19.063-07:00http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7145
Montr...http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7145<br /><br />Montreal truthers should pick up where Prof. Hall and I left off. If Shermer is introduced as an "Adjunct Professor of Economics" you should let the audience know that he is being mischaracterized. In fact, even to say he is an "Adjunct Professor" contradicts what the president of Claremont Graduate University says. <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5NRfvAMk2c&p=B29568D4C8D12FA0&playnext=1&index=39<br /><br />Joshua Blakeney<br />Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies<br />University of LethbridgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2492007072400883438.post-91293353717331769832010-10-13T13:03:45.888-07:002010-10-13T13:03:45.888-07:00Lots of anonymous entities - people too cowardly t...Lots of anonymous entities - people too cowardly to even use their real pseudonym - are lobbing ad hominem attacks (tacit admissions they're wrong) and lame obfuscations. <br /><br />The issue under discussion is very simple: Is Michael Shermer in fact an "Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University" (the exact words he used in promotional material for the U. of Lethbridge lecture) or is he not? Hint: The letter from Joseph C. Hough, President of Claremont Graduate University, posted above by Tony Hall, confirms that he is not. Hint: Shermer just removed "of Economics" from his website and Wikipedia page.<br /><br />The only defender of Shermer who even tries to address the issue is some guy named Len who at least has the guts to use his real pseudonym.<br /><br />Len, those references are from NEWSLETTERS for goshsakes! Newspapers and newsletters are not official sources, and are often wrong in the titles they bestow. For example, when I was a lecturer I was repeatedly called a "professor" by many news outlets. Had I decided to accept their opinion, and go around billing myself as a "professor" on the lecture circuit, I would have been smacked down very quickly by everyone from Bill O'Reilly to my Provost. Using false academic titles is a no-no. <br /><br />So Len, please find OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION from the Economics Department or the Administration at Claremont Graduate University (i.e. from official, not journalistic, sources) that Michael Shermer really is an Adjunct Professor of Economics there. If you succeed, I will admit that I was wrong. If you fail, I expect you to admit that you were wrong. Fair enough?Kevin Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16674471854209420488noreply@blogger.com