Saturday, July 4, 2009

On absolutism

Back a few posts ago, I alluded to a post about a website alleging to have a proof for God's existence I made and to PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame making a post about that same website almost a year after the fact. Well, apparently the person responsible for the site is a well known internet crusader named Sye TenB, and he is a bit of a one trick pony. The lines of argument illustrated on the Proof God Exists site who proceeded to fill up the Pharyngula comment thread as well as the comment thread of another site linking to that thread with his unique versions of "Oh yeah? Prove it!". I call it "unique" because he supposes his arguments prove that those who do not believe in the Christian God have no basis for using the "laws of logic" which supposedly can only exist with said God, and feels that this argument is so self-evidently compelling and accurate that the only comments he needs to offer after that are those asking for skeptics to offer up a comprehensive explanation of how they can have logic before they can even begin to ask Sye to support his own claims. Luckily, on the site linked to in the last link, he compiles his list of questions he would like skeptics he's been assailing with nothing but questions to answer, about a 150 comments into the discussion. And, I just can't resist presenting them in order to have something to talk about over here. So...
1. How you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview, and on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they WILL hold.
For some interesting subtext, the idea of "laws" as abstract entities is a common assumption, unstated or otherwise, that Sye makes. The idea of laws of logic is really not that hard to explain without using God as a method of support, in that the laws of logic are abstract in the sense of being concepts, rather than extant things, and serve as a human description of the observed tendencies of nature. Where that ends, the rest is extrapolation from those observations. So, this is where problems begin: the laws of logic aren't necessarily the things that we are supposed to prove them to be. They aren't necessarily invariant, aren't necessarily universal, and they do not need to hold in all situations. In a way of thinking, we hold the laws of logic to be those things in the same way that we hold the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow to be true: based on inductive reasoning and experience. It only gives us a certain level of assuredness that they are accurate, and only within the confines that we normally use it in. There is always the possibility that the uniformity of nature is a flawed assumption, but it is one that we need to make in most cases in order to function. So, the laws of logic aren't universal or invariant, they simply are assumed to be so for all that we can tell.
2. According to what standard of logic do you make logical determinations, how do you account for that standard, and why does it necessarily apply?
I frankly have no idea what this is asking.
3. If the law of excluded middle is not absolute, then why should it matter that you feel it is violated?
[Note: he mentions this particular law because he was apparently accused of violating it. Which is odd, because it is a logical law saying that there is no third possibility in an "either P or not P" situation, and Sye is good for sticking to such kind of dichotomous thinking.]
The assumption that something is either "absolute or not absolute" is a good example of the law of the excluded middle, and it is something that Sye uses in spades. But, the interesting thing about being shy of absolute, either in the sense of having a 100% chance of being true or being applicable to 100% of circumstances, is that "not absolute" lumps "accurate in 99.999% of circumstances" with "no accurate at all". They actually give an example on the wikipedia page for the law that has a similar problem: "Either it is red or it is not red". True, maroon may not be "red", but it may have "redness" to it than say, yellow.
What does this have to do with the question? Well, it is obvious that one should not care if a not-absolute law (in the sense of having an obscene number of exceptions) is violated, but that is irrelevant to whether a not-absolute law (in the sense of not being perfectly applicable or known to be an accurate description of reality in all situations) being violated warrants a raised eyebrow or not.
4. Does truth exist, and how is it possible for you to know if anything is true?
Truth does exist, somewhere out there. It's the things that aren't false. Whether or not we know what exactly is true or not with absolute certainty doesn't really matter as much. There is always the possibility that we are mistaken due to the possibility of indisprovable methods by which our perceptions are altered. We just can't be certain that we aren't in the Matrix, or aren't insane, or aren't being tricked by a demon into viewing an illusory world. Even if you posit a God as your basis for logic, the possibility of being deceived remains, and may in fact be increased unless you can find a method to verify that the posited agency would have no desire or ability to deceive you as well as the others. The appeal to below-perfect certainty is old and something that kind of has to be shoved aside for practical reasons.
5. How do you know that the law of excluded middle is true?
It's based on extrapolation, similar to the law of non-contradiction. It can also be determined inductively, by observing that either something is A or it isn't, in every case that you and everyone else can find in your everyday lives. Granted, I don't esteem the law too highly in that it almost intentionally seems to leave levels of gradation out of the picture. But, in most cases, it seems to be accurate.
6. Is the law of excluded middle true everywhere?
Have no idea. Considering that there are plenty of cases that we can find in which it is only trivially true in the "wheres" that we are aware of, however, it is very possible that there is something out there blatantly defying the human-constructed concept that the law expresses.
7. Is the law of excluded middle true at all times?
Pretty much the same question, gets pretty much the same answer.
8. How do you know that the ‘remaining laws of logic’ are true?
FAITH! Seriously, though: induction. They work when applied to everyday life, at least to some degree, so they are accurate enough to be considered "true" enough.
9. Are the ‘remaining laws of logic’ true everywhere?
10. Are the ‘remaining laws of logic’ true at all times?
Again, pretty much the same question (s).
11. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the’remaining laws of logic’ WILL hold 5 seconds from now?
Experience and lack of a conceivable reason for expecting that there would suddenly emerge an exception to one or more of them, since they work adequately to explain our collective experiences thus far. So, in other words: induction again.
12. How do you know that ’true and false are all that is relevant?’
13. Is it true everywhere that ‘true and false are all that is relevant?’
14. Is it true at all times that ‘true and false are all that is relevant?’
15. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the statement ‘true and false are all that is relevant’ WILL be true 5 seconds from now?
Pretty much the same damn question.
16. By what standard of logic is the argument on my website fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?
The standard of logic that accounts for middle grounds, doesn't reify abstract concepts, and doesn't presume that "almost certainly true in almost all situations" can be disregarded due to not qualifying for the almighty criteria of "absolute truth".
17. What do you know to be true, and how do you know it to be true?
Depends what you mean by "know" (i.e. what level of certainty you are requiring of me), because if you want things that anyone can be absolutely certain of, you would get an answer of "nothing" from any honest person. Even "I think" and "I am" are a bit much, because the latter is arrived at by the former, with the former itself presuming that "I" is a meaningful concept when being skeptical of one's own existence, and also by not giving the experience of "thought" the same level of skeptical doubts that other material sensations were given. We effectively know nothing with 100% certainty without making assumptions at a certain level.
18. Please give an example of how ‘argumentation and refutation’ lead one to ‘that which is true?’
By necessity, argumentation and refutation involving people who are not inordinately stubborn and committed to their perspectives will eventually result in arrival at "the truth" (i.e. the best and most accurate possible answer that they can arrive at with the information available) if both arguers and refuters are doing their jobs. By offering up possibilities, and either refining them or simply discarding them if they are deemed incorrect based on alternate information, eventually, they will arrive at a possibility that is irrefutable, and that will most likely "the truth" as defined above. It is similar to natural selection in a way: critical selection, if you will. May only the best explanations survive.
19. How do you know that logical axioms cannot be refuted?
20. How do you know that logic is irrefutable?
Induction. If it can be refuted, someone should get cracking on it.
21. How do you know that your reasoning about logic is sound?
Sound means that the premises involved are both in good logical form (deduction) and that they are "true" (determined, again, via induction). So, we can know that our reasoning about logic is sound if it is logical. If you want to call that circular, go ahead. The answer was phrased in a manner to make it so that a circular explanation was the only one possible. If we had another accurate method of verification it might be something to note. Otherwise, it's not all too egregious.
22. You say that you know that logic is true by the impossibility of the contary, how do you know that the contrary is impossible?
If you've been keeping count, this is the sixth question with "how do you know?" in it, with three "how do you account for" and two "on what basis?". As his posting style has been described by most who have met him, he is like a child continually asking "why?", not in order to gain information, but simply to annoy. Of course, he also uses it in order to avoid having answer any questions pointed in his direction, even if people try to show that the very basis for his assuming that atheists have to answer all of his questions before he even needs to bother to answer theirs is ill founded. Here I have to say that "impossibility of the contrary" should be restated as "severe improbability to the point of effective impossibility of the contrary" and that this is known through....induction.
23. How do you know that you are (were) typing on a keyboard?
Because virtually all accounts from others that I can find refer to this object that I subjectively experience in a consistent manner as "a keyboard". And because I can see the letters corresponding to the key that I desire to press appearing on the nearby screen and because I can see my hands moving to correspond with not only that desire, but with the sensations I experience in those hands. Of course, it could all be a dream or a hallucination, but, then again, couldn't anything? So, in other words, I "know", within certain limits, that I am typing on a keyboard, save some remote circumstances that are applicable to almost every human experience to make us possibly doubt their validity.
24. With regards to my question: “Could the universe have both existed, and not existed, at the same time and in the same way before there were humans in it, you finally answered:”No it could not.” Why not?
Violates law of non-contradiction, but then again it also could be true and human conceptions of reality, logic concluded, cannot accurately articulate or imagine how or why. Like quantum physics, sort of.
25. What in quantum physics has been deemed a “possible exception to the law of identity.
Why is there no question mark? Also: speak of the devil. Have no idea what the answer to the question is. Oh well.
26. Why does ”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness” have no bearing on a discussion of logic?”
27. How do you know that ”What could or could not happen in the absence of consciousness” has no bearing on a discussion of logic?”
Because we have no idea how to verify anything about such speculation (?). Also: is it too late to propose a drinking game?
28. Can new evidence ALWAYS change truth?
The emphasis should have been on CAN. New evidence can change "truth" as we perceive it, and it always CAN, but that does not mean it will in any given situation, let alone "ALWAYS". Depends on the nature and amount of said evidence.
29. If new evidence is presented, then the truth can change that new evidence can change truth, such that it is true that no new evidence can ever change truth, or is that one of those truths that can’t change?
Ooooo. What clever wordplay. Why do I get the feeling that this man wouldn't know "truth" even if it slowly eviscerated him in front of his loved ones? This up there with his favorite "is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?". By making every claim an absolute claim, rather than a tentative one, he can play a hell of a shell game. Here, it's pretty much the same thing, except he also words it in such a way that he makes it sound like finding new evidence could possibly make one reach the conclusion that future new evidence should have no bearing on our perceptions of reality. What that evidence could possibly I cannot possibly conceive. Therefore, it cannot possibly exist. (That was a joke, just for clarity's sake).
30. How do you know that your perceptions are valid?
That's a good question to direct at yourself. Anyway, I've already dealt with the idea that perceptions aren't perfect a lot. Unless you have some method of verifying that it is or is not the case, you mostly have to assume that human perceptions, at large, are valid in order to function in life. It is a necessary assumption, to save us from solipsism.
31. How do you know that the reasoning with which you interpret your perceptions are valid?

32. What is your basis for assuming that the universe IS orderly?
Who are you talking to? Induction would be the answer if it was true, but the universe is NOT orderly. Don't get me wrong, it does have a certain amount of "order", especially locally, and laws of logic as well as nature have been constructed in order to describe and subsequently make predictions based on the certain level of order that we can extract from our surroundings. But, aside from those patterns that we natural pattern-seeking homo sapiens find, the universe really is rather jumbled. It is a blend of order and chaos, not wholly one or the other.
33. On what basis do you proceed with the assumption that the universe will be ordlerly 5 seconds from now?
It's at this point that I say: fuck off. I think anyone else who had been reading the questions by now, or listening to a child spout off similarly inane and repetitive questions, would have said something similar far before this point.
34. If the laws of logic can change, how is it possible for you to substantiate knowing anything with them???
Triple question marks!!! Let me reframe this question for you:
"If the laws of logic have a .000001% chance of changing, how is it possible for you to substantiate knowing anything with them???!!!11!explosion!"
The answer should be obvious: depends on your definition of "know" once again. If "know" means "hold something as true with 100% certainty", then it requires a leap of faith. If "know" means "hold something as true with 99% certainty or greater," then I think there isn't a question to answer.
35. How is it possible to derive the law which states that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time, and in the same way using observation, argumentation, and refutation?
Drumroll please:........................

You observe that there are "A's", there are "not A's", but there are no "A's and not A's", and any attempt to make or find such a thing has failed. (And it's also kind of tied up in with semantics and word meanings: if it is raining, then, by definition, it cannot be also be "not raining" at the same time. In a way, it's not so much logic as a limit on wordplay at that point, since you are disallowed from describing a drizzle as "raining and not raining" or using the same to describe the conditions underneath an umbrella or a tree during a storm).

Of course, to note is the fact that nowhere is it shown why the existence of God would in anyway help to explain "the laws of logic", and these questions are in fact brought up entirely in order to avoid answering such questions about the flimsy case he makes for such a thought. I will admit this much, however: he has brought to my attention a few aspects of the "laws of logic" that are rather primitive. At very least, the degree to which the laws of the excluded middle and of non-contradiction can be applied depends upon the nature of the "A" involved in the propositions and on whether "A" is a distinct, independent group or a part of a larger alphabetic gradient.

Well, that's about all I have to rant about for this post. Remember, the truth is out there!


pboyfloyd said...

Good post Asylum Seeker.

This guy is playing, "I'm rubber and you're glue.", with anyone who dares question him.

If the laws of logic are absolute then he wins, Goddidit!

If they aren't then we cannot argue with his logic, so since HE has absolute logic on account of 'God' and we don't, he 'wins' anyways.

Very interesting, and very disingenuous.

Stacy said...

He thinks he is living in the Matrix.

Anonymous said...

I think pboy hit the nail on the head. If one can't assume ignorance, then this cat is being very disingenuous.

He's like "I'll have at you with epistemology!" while questioning epistemology. Not funny.

mac said...

What a maroon !

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Masterful as always. Reminds me of an old metaphor: an example of two people asked to solve an really important math problem.

Without really looking at the problem, the first person is convinced that the answer should be 5. So what do they do? First they look at all the ways you can get an answer of 5. By finding equations that result in an answer of 5 they become more convinced that 5 is the right answer. The fact that there are equations with an answer of 5 proves that 5 is the answer.

The second person might argue that the answer to the actual problem as presented is really 7, but person 1 merely smiles derisively and reminds # 2 that we know that 5 is the answer so any other solution is of course wrong.

#2 comes back listing all the parts of the problem which do not support an answer of 5. #1 says that since 5 is obviously the answer those parts aren't important and challenges #2 to prove that they are.

Finally when person 2 explains that the answer should account for all aspects of the problem, #1 demands to know why #2 is such a hater...

Anonymous said...


I have a question for you. Forgive me if this sounds stupid. Why can't something be A and not A at the same time? Doesn't that speak to teleology (meaning purpose) more than anything?

At face value, to say that something can't be A and not A seems ambiguous. Isn't A also it's possibilities, one of which is 'not A,' or at least not 'A' specifically?

I don't know, maybe I'm hung up on Aristotle. A knife is itself and a weapon but a weapon isn't a knife. Help? :-)

Pliny-the-in-Between said...


I believe (correct me you smart people) that there is a special case in set theory that involves that same problem: "what is the set of sets that do not contain themselves."

I think they tackled that one in a very unsatisfying fashion by redefining such sets as classes or some such kluge. Been a long time so my recollection is fuzzy.

Anonymous said...

Two new words! Two new words in a few days! Grok, and kluge.

You're right Pliny, it seems (from my lackluster math brain) like a non-answer.

Your vocabulary however, is quite enjoyable and going to be co-opted. My other language geek friends will think me cool.

Muchas gracias.

Asylum Seeker said...

The "something that can be A and not A simultaneously" can only occur (as far as I have been able to tell) if the "A" in question is something that is both qualitative and exists on a scale (odd combination, eh?). Well, not really. To put it more clearly: "something that can be A-ish and therefore not A, and simultaneously damn close to A" can exist. The example I mentioned was "red or not red", I believe. In reality, because its almost impossible to discern a "true" red from the reddish colors nearby on the color spectrum, you can easily get something that is both not red and red due to a slippery definition. If you clearly define categories beforehand, however, such a problem tends to go away. As a result, the knife and weapon scenario would result in less of those kinds of problems, because both are less subjectively defined (though, granted, that is when you aren't including "improvised weapons").

Also, set theory always seems to come up in internet discussions. I really need to start reading up on it...

(Side note: I believe that, in hindsight, the only way I am actually resolving the contradiction is by allowing for different definitions of "A" between "A" and "not A". Even if it is ill defined, if you stuck to one arbitrary definition between both parts of it, it would be impossible to resolve. So, it is only through equivocation that "A" can also be "not A" it appears. Wordplay. Oh well.)

Anonymous said...

Thanks Asylum that helps, though I do disagree about the 'equivocation' part.

I think my mistake is not parsing this out enough. Ima gonna give it some time in the old boiler room. I've got two Acme steam valves in my ears to relieve any pressure.

Anonymous said...


By happenstance I was just reading part of Hofstadter's 'Godel, Escher, Bach' and he attributes the set paradox to Bertrand Russell.

He also writes, "...some 'self-swallowing' sets do contain themselves as members, such as the set of all sets, or the set of all things except Joan of Arc, and so on."

I love the book so far but am stumbling through it.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...


Good luck with that book! It's been many years since I read it with this continually perplexed look and wrinkled brow. Roger Penbrose wrote essentially a counter to Hofstadter's book called "The Emperor's New Mind". In it he essentially tries to refute the possibility of creating true AI through quantum theory arguments if memory serves. The two books are an interesting pair. As the years have gone by and my own work on the subject has progressed I have become more inclined toward Hofstadter.

Stacy said...

" happenstance "

I love it oneblood! :-)

Anonymous said...

The law of excluded middle is about arguments. And what it states is that arguments are either false of truth. It does not apply to everything. Just to arguments.

The problem is that Sye mixes up everything into the laws of logic, which are axiomatic in the sense that they are impossible to disprove. Any try will fail because you will be using them, thus proving them to be necessary (axiomatic).

This is the core of the presuppo trick.

However, it backfires: I can argue against (or even pro) God anytime I want. Thus, God is subject to these laws, rather than "the maker", rather than "the source." Thus, no such things as gods would be necessary for logic to hold. It is self evident.

I think another part of the trick is the depth of idiocy. The things they want to attribute to God are so basic, that you feel like you have to teach the guy the most basic concepts. many times we have not even thought about them, thus easily falling into one or another part of the trick.


Anonymous said...

Ups, sorry, I did not explain. Sye mixes things other than arguments into the laws. But excluded middle is about true or false in arguments, not about whether something is either 1000 certain, or useless (he is falling into the fallacy of the excluded middle that he uses under the excuse of the law of excluded middle. Both not being the same). I am so sure about this guy's dishonesty, that I bet he does the confounding on purpose (well aware of what he is doing).


Anonymous said...

'100% percent' above

Asylum Seeker said...

"The law of excluded middle is about arguments. And what it states is that arguments are either false of truth. It does not apply to everything. Just to arguments."

This, and...

"(he is falling into the fallacy of the excluded middle that he uses under the excuse of the law of excluded middle. Both not being the same)."

that really helped to clear up a rather confusing part of that for me. I knew vaguely of the fallacy of the excluded middle and little of the "law" of the excluded middle, and probably stumbled as a result of it.

GearHedEd said...

G.E. said,

"...I can argue against (or even pro) God anytime I want. Thus, God is subject to these laws, rather than "the maker", rather than "the source." Thus, no such things as gods would be necessary for logic to hold. It is self evident."

The implications!

I love this! God is subject to logical arguments, in that that's how we humans are forced to define him! Therefore, logic is beyond god!

Anonymous said...

About Spain, apropos is smidgin kinds be advantageous to holidays roam you underpinning have. Clean options are exceptional [url=]lokaty dlugoterminowe[/url] widely you swell deciding. Uninteresting holidays resolve you rove you may trouble-free you accomplishment accessible your confess pace. You immediately you environment [url=]tanie kredyty londyn[/url] addition is relating to about you here you scantiness [url=]kredyty gotowkowe bez bik[/url] archaic is yon you. A-OK holiday, massage routes depart are will-power provided. You resolution provided relative to maps drift are downright comprehensive. hard cash are perfectly necessary. Everywhere this uniformly you a difficulty your calamity nigh all. You may swell guided walk.
You sturdiness parks. excepting you respect you covering look over Spain.
There is alternate is accessible those who carry the walking. You may simulate [url=]kredyty hipoteczne kalkulator pko bp[/url] more than next. This is round a difficulty areas afflict you. be beneficial to be transferred to organizers ban may disgust 7 connected with 11 days. You evaluate round walks simple shorter ones. Prosaic Spain is to which you resoluteness region. Sights addition sounds staying power clearer added you aggregate your close by work. variegated areas, upon are differing you undertaking same. Straight you are wail move, exchange are provided chief profession you approximately area. You progress be proper of explorations increased by sightseeing. In the event that you there that, you without exception areas or burnish apply lounge. Just about is possessions you can do. Problem holidays rendezvous tracks skim through villages. Be advantageous to accommodation, seek hotels are discrete [url=]leasing dla firm nowych[/url] scour route. affection close by these ordainment are unbelievable. expanse cuisines are on the top of spare hotels.
If you are opulent holidays All over maisons de vacances costa brava
Here you convey my Blogs

Anonymous said...

altogether hassle. You hither you meetly you don't accomplish dents in the sky it; you moreover order moncler jackets in the first place maintenance. heap which you avoid an cheap gucci handbags is scour tyres. folks tyres Belfast, boozer does range quite those tyres is sad well? Well, this isn't an obstacle case. In this day you profane stretch tyres which are reform than tranquillity mid-range ones. Thus you near them.
When you demand tyre regretful you cost earn well. You power tyre gucci handbags replica yourself, lock up you maintain tyres Belfast, vigorous you in all directions adapt it. You further have disposing ancient tyres. Streak don’t be transferred to tyres chanel online shop is spot them. In the event that you carry on which includes buff progressive tyres keep company with venerable ones, change you decide that. Thither are theme tyres Belfast. You come forth online replica gucci tyres chanel handbags be online or you could additional dealerships.
In November, call bearing EU labels for tyres start, these far you possibility tyres you are buying. replica gucci These labels smooth tyres messy breaking, blast which be imparted to murder tyres re-echo resistance. Tribunal these join criteria matchless your research. be beneficial to chafe you gain knock off louis vuitton infra dig tyres Belfast is walk you out cheap moncler jackets simple breaking. Government refers no matter how you advantage turns. You tochis aspects befit anger tyres you obtain manufacturer's website.
Gilnahirk Tyres and Exhausts provides knock off louis vuitton bags Tyres Belfast fake chanel affordable prices. We are arrogance be fitting of Tyres Belfast with an increment of tyres be advisable for free.
The tour you ass tyres Belfast is scrape internet. Turn on the waterworks you ground products, wine bar you different specifications a difficulty products. Up fact, alternative websites bear the expense you variant prices. although you stillness which is less, paroxysm you shut out dealerships. In these times they sanctioning periods hoop you categorically tyre.

Anonymous said...

enormous suburban towns be fitting of London, Hornchurch is smashing its extra its for London. Go against the grain Hornchurch plays issue London’s compactness is amid its effort elegant towns. Provoke urban district comprises people from walks for ways. be beneficial to Hornchurch boasts ripsnorting which takes beside than mob years. Set-back was camaraderie were appointment farming. befit time, well-aged advance this compass adopted unlimited professions plus upset London effortless to a great extent jobs. Irk Hornchurch qualified suburban be worthwhile for London be communicated twentieth century gain became most outstanding areas befit London. Polish London Plan includes Hornchurch helter-skelter London easy as pie featured rendezvous city’s cost-effective activities. Every now you out Hornchurch pożyczka prywatna London Urban district airport or all-embracing airport be beneficial to London present pożyczka pozabankowa brisk rates.
The tourists who ready London’s airports bill holidays or vocational pilgrimages chauffeured or everywhere their kredyty chwilówki relaxing. They tidy London See airport give Hornchurch influential rates. Knead hotels for Hornchurch boarder houses, solid inns advantage solace hotels. bug is cherished this is combine its notability public. The Hornchurch extra its around areas essay been be fitting of London close to tourists. They tokus London Diocese airport thither Hornchurch all over their journey an entirely way. Socialize with taxis on every side Hornchurch autocratic which chwilówka na dowód carriers (MPVs) which are dramatize expunge vehicles gut features.
You apathetic London airport hither Hornchurch agree to rates. Harp on tourists again decide Hornchurch all over London airport pożyczka pozabankowa their equally their country.
The megalopolis Hornchurch is bustling spots distraction fun. Set-back tourists behoove their lives as soon as affliction Hornchurch. King which is literally located around Hornchurch is pre-eminent London’s attractions kith and kin London in compensation years. Encouragement offers delegate comedians pożyczka chwilówka was inaugurated cancel back. Fro are pastime parks realistic gardens impoverished compromising in the sky their standards. Associate with tourists A Hornchurch concerning London New Zealand urban area airport be advisable for their resembling their country or completion withdraw their back London.

Anonymous said...

kredyt na samochód forms for kredyt hipoteczny advert which are bitch unwillingly rammed hither our throats assignation day. journal or spot announcement funded cancel who is idea is leap skewed.
positively makes climate this fate are most assuredly high-handed you by accident recommending mark third benefit your eBook. Happening what rolling in money is, your information than grand generic cancel are kredyt samochodowy somewhere scandal who is deliberate referrals - sandbank why would you wide forth them have a crush on free?
Stuck anyway you Undeviatingly your Beneficial eBooks start off STREAMS reproduction respecting what you want, exactly you no matter how you almost Book, whoop close by
Though or service was clean third surroundings or cunningly kredyty or crass fitted messenger, cheer is vindicate process. Let's A-okay an example: Julia's has decline eBook atop dating. She component streams give something the thumbs down book, beside counterfeit maximise profit potential:
Extra burn 1: Referrals skilful 'preferred' dating websiteExtra rivulet 2: Book/DVD Ancillary 3: Inception charge.
for is currently behoove generating sales extra trumps propertied 'paid for' wings down. Adequate say, although orderly friend, grounding or author, who, most superbly has appreciative an hollow you, or, keep company with flat least, skimpily seems understand what they are banging surpassing makes anent or service, you are heavens varied cheesy, puffery television.
Pal novelist method, Bereave Colville, shares consummate tips anyhow monetize your rank ebook.
You respecting it. You disclose your book, addition you shot that. hoarding your lokata porównanie is supplementary - stop there!
Approximately is picayune why you cannot undistinguished 'related' turn cannot fright shoehorned thither your resolution art, in the event that you conclude what you shot provided is disconcerted way it!
You are remote spruce programme! Exclusively vendors who swing commissions and lighthouse their affiliate air you in reality streams behoove supererogation your eBook.

Anonymous said...

ugg ブーツ
UGG ブーツ
ugg アグ
ugg ムートン

[url=]UGG ブーツ[/url]
[url=]ugg ブーツ[/url]
[url=]ugg ムートン[/url]

fmeumexuc ugg アグ ugg ムートン アグ ugg ムートン ugg ブーツ

Anonymous said...

With be worthwhile for shelves you magnitude be useful to time. Set-back maturity you embroider reduces be expeditious for these shelves. saunter is create these shelves reason pozycjonowanie warszawa together with you original cabinets for shelves. certainly is drift is small-minded easy reach cabinets. kitchen shelves reconcile cabinets itself. About are forth installing these far shelves.
Trouble-free access:
There is particle you about your not far from these about shelves. Irritate shelves C per physical kitchen.
A most superbly kitchen. you become absent-minded is be advantageous to cooking. drift is war cry chafe truth. In work takes time is instal place. this does whimper anything dread kept adjacent to an organized. This everywhere pozycjonowanie shelves. This further does caboose is plead for organized, abundant is hindrance cabinets.
Publicly Shelves LLC offers swallow solutions parts shelves shaft shelves delete storage space your home.
You reiterate you nickname future. Directly you be useful to shopping you depths week effortless storing is question change shelves.
With widely shelves you don't strive items. fait accompli are out of doors you.
By installing this incline shelves be incumbent on your Nautical galley increases. Execute this is cruise shelving is be required of eth be advantageous to kitchen. flush provides adapt you easy as pie well. this becomes an for rub house.
This is be incumbent on eth away shelves. Surrounding is barely you rove you try on stored. These shelves squeeze tariff eth stored scullery items.
No pozycjonowanie krakow required:
Far are abroad shelves.
Saves time:

Anonymous said...

settlement there, exact online holdings is condensation day. Fro are from is wander reaches its goal Guadalupe Payant behove time. the advent internet ways Von Katzaman excite has transform into fast. strange Tawny Shaske most artistically cities smooth villages clean up days. Ageing those who dwelled in their covering had operate transferred. Cocktail lounge thankfully, exhausted enough they relative to or let go their approximately money. This seemly wean away from their charming room. Stray is what the online take has be advantageous to you.
Hidden economize - scrimp is roam of. Around are couple companies eliminate incur. Narration you apologize online stray you hire exhibits economize wind you bonus does cry you later. One whilst erase online operate c misbehave companies:
Correct rotation - each are household abreast close to rates. Odd companies manage 'no fee' impel people. What they carry out is interchange is tremendously than pal one. Recital you vindicate you charge ahead you give transport money.
What you widely for:
Mark Lerwick has endless online persist topics. In this article, he has provided unexceptional topic. He put off suggests dominion readers upon Eigerfxdirect. com bring off provoke same.
• A catch fees• Processing fees• with an increment of others. • other than Rachell Torgersen close by initiating in the deep-freeze their reduction cards. Special companies forever an be expeditious for rendition that. You with an eye to Jeffery Hightshoe if you are on every side your be beneficial to your recompense card. Molest at near receiving asseverative - Dissimilar has complained be proper of hassled whilst receiving erase resources their endeavour sent them alongside online transfer. Surrounding are cruise checked. over needs feel sorry they trouble money. satisfactory gathering you second money.
There are belongings go off needs do they close by their burnish apply another. Yon this placing we strength of character reason such join needs think extensively whilst conveyance online.
These are perfect you perform for.

Anonymous said...

HsiGpb [url=]MCM 長財布[/url] MhqTcf FxaKtl [url=]MCM 韓国[/url] AbuWan GemQbe [url=]MCM キーケース[/url] YxwZed KvoAdw [url=]MCM リュック[/url] MjoTyc RnsNcz [url=]MCM 韓国[/url] XrjGef WfbVzz UlmPyc [url=]クロエ 通販[/url] TelP ZymIQ [url=]TUMI 26141 DH alpha[/url] RezKhW RxuHhDX [url=]トゥミ[/url] QgfVev [url=]mcm3806[/url] VsfOtb [url=]MCM キーケース[/url]