 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
July 3, 2006
By: LAB RATS....What is it they say about college students? That they're the white lab rats of the social sciences? Eszter Hargittai, noting yet another report based on a study of a small number of college students, complains about this:
To make it even worse, the particular study she highlights is about sexual response in men. What are the odds that any conclusions about sex based on a study of 20-year-olds would be applicable to other age groups as well? As an aside, my particular pet peeve in this area is slightly different: surveys that purport to show how stupid kids are these days. 50% of high school juniors can't locate Belgium on a map! Fine, but how many 40-year-olds can find Belgium on a map? But I've complained about this before, haven't I? —Kevin Drum 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (67)Comments
i wonder if our esteemed president could find Belgium on a map. Posted by: cleek on July 3, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKI find it ironic that Kevin criticizes bad science, while constantly pimping the "man causes global warming!" myth... Posted by: American Hawk on July 3, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKHow true! We used to refer to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology as the Journal of the College Sophomore. All psychological research using college students should specify that the subjects were in the low motivation condition. Posted by: cailte on July 3, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk, have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? Just curious. Posted by: LeisureGuy on July 3, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINKAnd American Hawk checks in with a mind-numbingly stupid comment. Posted by: cailte on July 3, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINKI wonder if American Hawk could've found Iraq on a map before March 2003... Posted by: Wonderin on July 3, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKLeisureGuy-- Have you seen this? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 It's written by an MIT prof of atmospheric science, and he points out how full of crap Gore is. Posted by: American Hawk on July 3, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKWhat a stupid study. Men are more likely to think in sexual terms. Women are more likely to focus on personality. Eureka! I especially liked this part: Levesque doesn't know why all the men in the study seemed to over-sexualize women, but he speculated that "it's got to be something about socialization, that men are being taught in some way to view women as sexual objects." What a moron. Posted by: Homer on July 3, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKOn the other hand... The broader aim of the study was identifying those who may be likely to commit sexual assaults, which happens a lot on college campuses. The data may not be easily generalized, but to the extent they DO apply to men 18-22 years of age, they're important. Hargittai also complains about the age of the man in the photo that accompanies the article. This is not the study author's fault - it's the HealthDay reporter overgeneralizing the data. Posted by: MadLad on July 3, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKAH - they will never look at anything that challenges their religion. Posted by: Homer on July 3, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKIt's written by an MIT prof of atmospheric science yes, and his name is Richard Lindzen. and he has some problems of his own. Posted by: cleek on July 3, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKYes, you have complained about this in the past. As a 60-something, I am often disappointed by how little our 20-somethings know about the world. Grump, grump. Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on July 3, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKThere's an entire field called statistics to deal with the problem of sample size. No shit you can't overgeneralize too much by looking at a very specific group, but then if the difference between college men and college women is strong enough, then you can fairly generalize to the population at large. Again, that's the whole point of statistics. Posted by: armen on July 3, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINKArmen: This is not a statistical issue - it's an issue of selectivity. The question is whether college-age men and women are sufficiently like men and women of other ages that their data can be generalized. If they're too different, there are no statistics that can help make them more similar. Posted by: MadLad on July 3, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKIn one of the areas I do research, human-computer interaction, lack of variability in student populations is a persistent problem: if researchers aren't careful, they can reach all sorts of unreasonable conclusions about how easily novice users can familiarize themselves with a new application or device, how high their visual acuity is, how well they can manage complex hand and finger movements, how quickly they can recall information, whether they're easily distracted, and so forth. It's a well-recognized problem, now, but I think it's led to some unfortunate results with respect to technology transfer for interactive systems in the past. Posted by: RSA on July 3, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk seeks to pin Kevin Drum with a charge of "bad science" by pointing to a guy who's pretty much the poster boy for bad science. Guys like Hawk and Al must be great joys to their employers. "Hawk, this report you gave me is filled with erroneous data, material nobody can verify, and stuff that appears to just be made up out of whole cloth!" "You're wrong, boss! There's this guy who lives in a yurt out in Idaho, and he agrees with my findings! And I only had to pay him $5 to agree with me. So there!" Posted by: Derelict on July 3, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINKfrom the research write-up: Then, after the five minutes, ... "If he found her to be physically attractive, he would tend to rate her as sexier,"So the problem these 18yos or maybe the researchers have is distinguishing between a woman who works on her appearance to look sexier in general vs. a woman who targets her sexiness at somebody during a 4 minute meeting. I didn't see this distinction mentioned much less that the subjects grasped it. Posted by: MonkeyBoy on July 3, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK Who cares where Belgium is located? They don't have any oil for us to buy or steal, so we won't be invading them anytime soon. Posted by: Peter on July 3, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINKDerelict -- Yeah, they let pretty much anyone have a named professorship at MIT. Just because you don't like his analysis does not make him "the poster boy for bad science." Lindzen is a lot more knowledgeable than you about climate and climate change. As a scientist, reading his skeptical account of the current understanding (or lack thereof) of CO2 emmissions effecting climate makes a lot more sense than Gore's shrill certainty. The earth is a very complex system, and there MUST be more than one variable changing. Posted by: mjk on July 3, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINKgerman kids could find belgium on the map -- they used to visit regularly on their way to france -- .but that was a few decades ago. Posted by: mudwall jackson on July 3, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINKThanks for backing up the kids on the stupidity question. A current pet peeve of mine is "the obesity crisis" in kids today. When I walk my kids to school, I notice that about 1 kid in 20 looks mildly overweight. Then I look at the moms who have walked their kids to school and the proportion is more like 1 mom in 2 looks mildly to greatly overweight. So why is it the kids who are having a crisis? Posted by: catherineD on July 3, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKSo why is it the kids who are having a crisis? in order to sell a cure, there needs to be a disease. Posted by: cleek on July 3, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKMy next door neighbor, an English teacher for 25 years, told me the secret. American Hawk, can you read? I asked whether you had seen "An Inconvenient Truth," and you respond with a link to some idiot's research... Just answer the question, okay? Posted by: LeisureGuy on July 3, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINKHow many ignorant 20-year-olds know the air-speed of an unladen swallow? Posted by: gar on July 3, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINKIn college, I found that a few attractive women assumed I was interested in them. They'd be all like, "Oh my god, here comes another one, I wish I had a stick", and I'd be like "umm, you dropped your wallet back there." Likely they were just traumatized by all the frat boys. And then there were the misandrist lesbians. If you smiled at them they gave you a look like they wanted to cut your penis off and shove it down your throat. Not that these groups would show up in any statistical analysis. Posted by: asdf on July 3, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINKMy word, what an awesome example of truthiness! Just because you don't like his analysis does not make him "the poster boy for bad science." - True; it's the fact that his science is bad that makes him a poster boy for bad science. Lindzen is a lot more knowledgeable than you about climate and climate change. - True; and yet it's foolish to compare Richard Lindzen to Derelict. What counts is the fact that he is opposed by all of the other scientists in his field, many equally or better versed in the discipline. As a scientist, - Really, mjk@mjk.mjk? What sort? Got any peer-reviewed papers on a discipline even vaguely related? Don't try to claim credibility when you post anonymously. reading his skeptical account of the current understanding (or lack thereof) of CO2 emmissions effecting climate makes a lot more sense than Gore's shrill certainty. - It makes more sense to you. But more likely you are simply predisposed to believe it, since you obviously already dislike Gore. The earth is a very complex system, and there MUST be more than one variable changing. - True! Also, duh! And yet, this in no way invalidates the observed fact that several of the changing variables are due to us. It's presented as contradictory when in fact it is not! I have to say, people ask for better trolls on a pretty regular basis, and this mjk joker is a cut above the Al / American Hawk sort of spoof / moron. Look at all that truthiness! Posted by: S Ra on July 3, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINKEvery introductory methods course in psychology talks about the problem of generalizing from college sophomores to a wider population. I find this kind of criticism specious. When the entire profession understands something, why must it be repeated in every published paper? For example, all subjects must be treated humanely. Do we then require a statement in every paper stating that they were? Does the fact that some subjects were treated inhumanely in the bad old days require that we assert that things are different now? When there is a question of generalizability, a follow-on study is needed to demonstrate that anything is different with a different age group, gender, or culture. It is not the task of a single study to cover all groups. These comparisons do get made and gradually you build up a literature about what sources of difference affect generalizability and which do not. Being familiar with this literature is part of being an expert in a domain of research. We are all human beings. If we did not share strong similarities in ways of thinking and behaving the discipline of psychology would be impossible because measurement would be impossible. Helmholtz gave up his psychophysics because of human variability. Statistics are meant to measure the range of variability among subjects. Generalizability beyond a sample is very much concerned with variability, a statistical issue. It would be great to test everyone in the world all the time in every study. Can anyone tell me why this isn't possible? Good. If you understand that, then generalize your understanding to the current situation. Posted by: Nancy on July 3, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINKS Ra saved me the trouble of deconstructing A-Hawk. At the end of the day, when dealing with exceedingly complex systems the accepted scientific approach is to examine the totality of variables, look at those which fluctuate most widely, and see if those correlate to the observed phenomena. It is NOT accepted to ignore the most closely correlated fluctuations and seize only one variable that supports a narrow hypothesis. For example, it is generally accepted in the medical and scientific communities that cigarette smoking causes cancer. We cannot validate this with 100.0000% certainty because of the complexity of human environment and the human body. However, smoking vs. non-smoking is a widely fluctuating variable, and we can observe that those who smoke have a far greater chance of contracting lung cancer. No other observable variables correlate as well. However, you can still find a handful of "scientists" who will happily tell you that smoking does not cause cancer. Of course, they may be on the payroll of a tobacco company--but they have credentials! Who ya gonna believe? The 99.9 percent of doctors and scientists who say smoking causes cancer, or just the handful who say it doesn't? Similarly, who ya gonna believe? The 98% of alll credentialed climatologists who say human activities are accelerating global warming, or the six who say humans have no impact? Posted by: Derelict on July 3, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINKChrist will never allow our planet to be destroyed. Remember his promise to Noah? Global warming is nothing more than an attempt by the secular humanists to undermine our Lord and Savior. Posted by: American Hack on July 3, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINKKevin - Thanks for the pointer. Always interesting to observe that some people assume you (me in this case) have no idea what you're commenting about. Hah. By the way, the reason I chose this study to highlight in particular is precisely because of what you note. What are the chances that 20-year-olds' thoughts on issues sexual in nature are going to be representative of the entire population? MadLad said: Hargittai also complains about the age of the man in the photo that accompanies the article. This is not the study author's fault - it's the HealthDay reporter overgeneralizing the data. I never said it was the study author's fault, or that it was even the HealthDay reporter's fault. I was just pointing out that the word "men" is being interpreted to mean something more than a college-aged student (understandbly) even though the study was done on college-aged students. By the way, thanks for addressing armen's confusion about sampling, statistics and questions of validity. It's one thing when people don't get this, it's quite another when they *think* they get it, but they actually don't. Nancy - If you had read my post on this you may have a better idea of where I'm coming from. Of course research has to start somewhere. One of the points I made was that the authors of these articles - whether the academics or the journalists - very rarely talk about their findings clearly enough to note to the reader that the findings are restricted to college students. They keep talking about men vs women instead of college males and females. They don't even mention this in the journal article abstract! I also note in my post that the promised follow-up studies on more representative populations rarely if ever follow. Posted by: eszter on July 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINKS Ra (oh, I tried your email address -- fake.email.addy; it didn't work. Weird.)-- I'm a chemist. I'm a graduate student at the university of michagan, currently writing my PhD thesis. I don't post my email address on this board because I don't want any more spam than I already get. As a chemist, no, none of my publications are remotely related to climate change. I never claimed to be a climatogist. But like I said, as a scientist who has both read Lindzen's analysis and heard Gore speak about climate change, Lindzen's skepticism is more compelling to me. It should be obvious to you that the Alfred Sloan Professor of Climatology at MIT is part of the often-cited "scientific community." The fact that such a prestigious member of the community disagrees with Gore's view should make it plain that if there is a scientific consensus (and there is, and that consensus is that the current warming trend is due to anthropogenic CO2 emmisions), than it is by no means monolithic. How could you possible know that he is opposed by every member of his field? Did you ask them? Most in his field might disagree with Linzen (I have no idea if this is true or not), but I would be shocked if all would positively say that he is wrong. There's just not a whole lot of good data. We only have direct measurements for ~150 years or so. You say that Linzen is a bad scientist because he does bad science...do you have any examples? I'd say the burden of proof lies on you and not the tenured MIT professor. Is anyone who disagrees with the consensus opinion on this site labeled a troll? Posted by: mjk on July 3, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKDerelict -- Lindzen is not saying humans are having no impact. He is saying that it is impossible to know how large that impact is. Posted by: mjk on July 3, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKI would give myself 40-60 odds of being able to find Belgium on a map (assuming no names on the map), and I'm well read and educated. Sure, I learned geography at one time, but that doesn't mean I'm still carrying around that piece of useless information (to me and my life) around. For most people, it's probably more a function of how many years it's been since their last trip to Europe, when practical intelligence would be engaged when looking at maps and deciding where to go in one's available time. Posted by: Jimm on July 3, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINKmjk: You're a grad student at the "university of mighagan"? Really? I'd have assumed any grad student attending there could spell Michigan correctly. Posted by: Yuda on July 3, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINKIs anyone who disagrees with the consensus opinion on this site labeled a troll? Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Though there's often interest in new ways to agree with the site consensus. Posted by: Shelby on July 3, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINKThe allegged problem is two-fold. First, this is all unfunded research that would not have been done without an available pool of students as subjects. Second, you are talking about assistant professors who will not get tenure without being published enough. So? This is OJT for when the same professors get a real question and grants to research things. A qualified peer-reviewed journal won't publish a research article unless it tells how the subjects were selected. Anyone who reads the journals knows this. So what's your beef with this system? It's cheap, it's useful in proportion to its price, and it works. Sure it's misleading to people who read it but aren't trained as researchers. So what? They can't read real research, either. So what's your beef? Posted by: Rick B on July 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINKMad lad, with all due respect, I think it is an issue of statistics. This is basic research methods. You control the variables you can, acknowledge the ones you can't, and if your sample is large enough and the effects strong enough, assume the numbers will hold true for the population at large as well. I refer to the great explanation by Nancy, above. Posted by: armen on July 3, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK"Most in his field might disagree with Linzen (I have no idea if this is true or not), but I would be shocked if all would positively say that he is wrong." Wow, so if one scientist fails to positively say he is wrong you won't have to be shocked. Really going out on a limb there. Posted by: jefff on July 3, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKArmen - But the "population at large" in this case is at best all students at that particular university (but more likely in that major or that course from which they were sampled). You have no basis to extrapolate to the entire nation or world. This is an issue of sampling. Posted by: eszter on July 3, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKWhen you have a "convenience sample" rather than a random sample from the total group that you are attempting to describe, you also compare significant characteristics of the sample to those of the universe you are planning to generalize to and report the results. If you don't do that and generalize anyway, you are simply guessing. {"I don't have the data to compare, so I assume that my test subjects are representative of the group I am generalizing to."} It's really a lot more than just sample size and computations. Posted by: Rick B on July 3, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINKYuda -- I do know how to spell Michigan. It was a typo. Posted by: mjk on July 3, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINKJefff -- I guess I meant to say that I would be surprised if most scientists in the community would say that he's wrong. Esp since really Linzen is saying is that there's not enough data to say anything. Posted by: mjk on July 3, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKMost climate scientists have said he is wrong because they are part of the scientific consensus on global warming and he disputes that consensus. Just like the handful of doctors or medical researchers who still say HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Surely there are some chemistry equivalents. Maybe Pons and Fleishman? Posted by: jefff on July 3, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINKArmen - yes, it is an issue of statistics. And the statistical problem is that of unit heterogeneity. If college students are sufficiently different units than members of other sub-groups of the population at large, a sample selected on that characteristic could easily lead to biased estimates, and there really is no way of knowing a priori (other than theoretically-based expectations, which should guide further inquiry). That's the problem, and there's no statistical "fix" other than using a braoder sample and testing for it. Posted by: Nick on July 3, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINKArmen: I still maintain that it's not a statistical issue but an experimental one. The ability to generalize your data from a select bunch of people to a larger population is limited by the extent to which your sample resembles your population. The best way to insure generalizability is to sample the entire population randomly - that is, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for your study. In the case of college students, though, you are only sampling randomly from a college student population, so your data can only realistically be generalized to college students in general (assuming you have a sample that includes students of both genders and all ages, etc.). Eszter: How very cool that you are reading the posts here, and great that Kevin tipped you off to the discussion. I think Nancy's reply is the best. Most academics - and certainly all social psychologists - know that when they work with college-age samples their results are not always generalizable to older, more diverse populations. I doubt Prof. Levesque would make the claim that his data apply to all men across the board. The HealthDay reporter, on the other hand, may not have the same appreciation of the limits of the data. This study's results also mirror "common sense" notions of how men and women interact, further encouraging readers to extrapolate these findings to people and situations that are far beyond what the original data will allow. Scientists can try to stop this from happening, but it's tough to prevent. Posted by: MadLad on July 3, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINKMadLad - It's interesting to see people's reactions here. If the data don't apply to all men and women then I don't see why the writing should make it sound so. It is completely possible to write up the findings while referring to college students instead of all men and women. The original academic piece does not say anything about the sampling frame in the abstract, rather, generalizes to all men and women. That's problematic as it is misleading. Posted by: eszter on July 3, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you are entitled to add "Codger" after your name when you start asking "Have I told you this before?" I say that in all affection, as a fellow codger. Posted by: Jame on July 3, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINKI'll be in Belgium in August. I'll tell you when I find it! Posted by: Luigi on July 3, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINKBelgium, huh? Try this little quiz on for size... Eszter: Ya' know what... In this instance I agree with you. I looked at the paper, and not only does it not offer this important qualification as a "limitation" of the study, but the age range of the participants is not even mentioned in the "Methods" section of the paper. This is not a high quality piece of work, and it's received far more mileage than it deserves. We're on the same page here. Posted by: MadLad on July 3, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINKI hate white lab rats. :) My ads below: 我向大家推荐:要想寻找武夷岩茶信息请访问 武夷岩茶 网，各种武夷岩茶应有尽有。上海 美容 公司专业生产美容产品，欢迎选择美容。上海 整形 公司专业生产整形产品，欢迎选择整形。北京 安利 厂向广大客户提供安利产品及安利服务。要想寻找尖锐湿疣信息请访问 尖锐湿疣 网，各种尖锐湿疣应有尽有。上海 癫痫病 公司专业生产癫痫病产品，欢迎选择癫痫病。北京 慢性肾炎 厂向广大客户提供慢性肾炎产品及慢性肾炎服务。北京 前列腺炎 厂向广大客户提供前列腺炎产品及前列腺炎服务。北京 抽脂手术 厂向广大客户提供抽脂手术产品及抽脂手术服务。北京 除皱手术 厂向广大客户提供除皱手术产品及除皱手术服务。中国 隆鼻手术 网，打造隆鼻手术领域专业搜索平台，提供全球隆鼻手术品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 隆胸 吗？请到中国隆胸网来寻找隆胸。北京 整容/整形美容 厂向广大客户提供整容/整形美容产品及整容/整形美容服务。威化杯烘烤机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的威化杯烘烤机,丰富威化杯烘烤机行业资讯助您成交。前列腺 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的前列腺,丰富前列腺行业资讯助您成交。 ju60ly-1 Posted by: sam on July 3, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINKHow many Belgians could find their country's greatest legacy to the modern world, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on a map? I score 11th-grade social studies standardized tests for a large testing company. Said high-school juniors are asked to draw, freehand, a map of the world and label the continents, oceans, equator, Sahara, Rocky Mountains, and two northern-hemisphere countries. The results range from surprisingly good to cosmically stupid. The mean is not at the midpoint. However, I am given to wondering as I work, what the results would be if a similar task were required of (a) high school teachers, (b) members of Congress, and (c) members of the Bush family. Posted by: Kent Barrett on July 3, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINKMadLad, thanks, glad you see where I'm coming from on this one.:) Posted by: eszter on July 3, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINKIs anyone who disagrees with the consensus opinion on this site labeled a troll? Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Though there's often interest in new ways to agree with the site consensus. with respect to global warming and human impact, the scientific consensus makes it such that there is only one valid point of view. ... the wingnuts are in denial, and their rants don't qualify as deserving of a serious rebuttal. why argue science with the scientifically illiterate? other than for one's own amusement, I suppose. they're trolls because their posts are, by definition, uninformed, unscientific wastes of time and space. Posted by: Nads on July 4, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINKKevin: if it's any consolation, British Rail apparently cant find Belgium, either on a map or in actual life ... our last trip on EUrostar resulted in a 'minor error' that diverted us to Paris instead ... Posted by: firefall on July 4, 2006 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINKMy wife and I found Belgium last time we were in Europe! (There it was, right between France and the Netherlands. Who knew?) The Trappist monks there make kick-ass beer, btw. If they don't have beer tours of Belgium, they should. Posted by: RT on July 4, 2006 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINKIf Reagan was still President, we could have convinced him that aliens from outer space were imposing global warming on us, and he'd conclude that the warring nations of the world would have to unite to fight the menace that the aliens were visiting on us. Seriously, St. Ronnie did have a thing for the idea of a larger threat that would force the US and the USSR to set aside their differences in order to fight. He just might have been willing to settle for global warming. Posted by: RT on July 4, 2006 at 7:47 AM | PERMALINKWhat kind of map are we talking about? I'm pretty confident I could find Belgium on a map of Europe, but a network map of the university where I work -- that I'm not so sure. Posted by: CrackWilding on July 4, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINKMy 6-year-old niece moved from France to Austin, Tx., and when she showed the class photos of her visit with us to Wales, the teacher asked her where Wales was. She asked because she didn't know--they tried to find it on the globe, and couldn't, even when my niece told her it was somewhere "near London", since we drove there. Posted by: KathyF on July 5, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK<a>Amber at Home</a> <a>Vicky Vane</a> Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia - generic tylenol generic tylenol Discount pharmacy UK: discount viagra discount viagra generic viagra generic viagra buy viagra buy viagra order viagra order viagra cheap viagra cheap viagra discount levitra discount levitra generic levitra generic levitra buy levitra buy levitra order levitra order levitra cheap levitra cheap levitra discount cialis discount cialis generic cialis generic cialis buy cialis buy cialis order cialis order cialis cheap cialis cheap cialis mens health pills mens health pills adult DVD rental adult DVD rental adult DVD adult DVD Wholesale adult dvd wholesale adult dvd adult DVD rentals adult DVD rentals adult sex movies adult sex movies adult video adult video adult DVD movies adult DVD movies adult DVD empire adult DVD empire adult video and dvd adult video and dvd cheap adult DVD cheap adult DVD adult porn DVD adult porn DVD adult DVD download adult DVD download adult xxx DVD adult xxx DVD rent adult DVD rent adult DVD online adult DVD rental online adult DVD rental adult DVD now adult DVD now Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online Prescription drugs prescription drugs Drug prescription drug prescription drug online prescription drug online prescription drugs store drugs store Drugs online drugs online Discount prescription drugs Discount prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs Discounted prescription drugs Prescription drugs discount prescription drugs discount Cheap prescription drugs Cheap prescription drugs Prescription drugs prescription drugs Discount drugs Discount drugs Drugs store Drugs store Adult dating personals Adult dating personals personal adult dating personal adult dating dating personals dating personals Adult dating Adult dating Adult personals Adult personals Adult dating personal Adult dating personal Adult dating services Adult dating services Adult dating online Adult dating online Adult dating Adult dating Online adult dating Online adult dating dating online dating online Online dating Online dating Adult dating services online Adult dating services online online dating service Online dating service Adult dating site Adult dating site Adult sex dating Adult sex dating Adult dating service Adult dating service Adult dating online Adult dating online internet portal internet portal internet search engine internet search engine online portal online portal seek and find seek and find pay per click search engine pay per click search engine ppc search engine ppc search engine internet dating internet dating free internet dating free internet dating online dating online dating free online dating free online dating singles online singles online free match free match singles club singles club online dating site online dating site diskont apothek diskont apothek dusciunt pharmacy discount pharmacy Posted by: top choice on July 6, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK <a>Candi Moore</a> 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
