Kingdom Come at Roundabout Underground + me + Internet friendships, part 2

1211161425Continued from here. This personal essay reflects on blogging and the development of my Internet friendships and was provoked by my visit to Kingdom Come in November.

me

I mentioned that one motivation for me to see Kingdom Come while I was in NYC for Love, Love, Love was its potential to dovetail with important parts of my Richard Armitage fandom experience — the fact that the self and the relationships that developed out of it were exclusively constituted virtually. My self here is named “Servetus,” a pseudonym that predated my fan experience. She was quickly nicknamed “Serv” (probably by people who were frustrated by the spelling confusion with the famous “Severus”) and she is very like me in most ways, but not in others. In some ways, Servetus is aspirational for me; in other ways, she is still experimenting. As Samantha does in the play, I quickly found that I had developed very close, even intense friendships with people I had no plan to meet. At the same time, I have developed intense enmities as well. Each has surprised me in a different way. But I never intended, when I started, to meet even one fellow fan or reader.

This blog does not celebrate the euphoric group meetup in the same way that some other bloggers in the fandom do, even while casting no aspersions on the widespread enjoyment of that experience in our fandom. It’s fairly rare that I meet another fan in real life, I try to do it one-on-one if I can, and I avoid doing it casually. My reluctance has never been about you, the reader, but all about me. To meet me is not quite to meet Servetus. In contrast to Samantha’s “Dom” in the play, Servetus never gave herself significant real-life features that I do not have. I’m not using Servetus to pretend to be a woman, or a (now ex-)professor, or multi-lingual, or whatever. Servetus writes a selective portrait of my life, but she doesn’t fundamentally misrepresent it, either. Servetus and I share an education and a knowledge base and a fundamental curiosity about the world. Servetus and I see the world in the same way, although I hope she expresses herself more clearly than I do. Servetus tries to follow certain kinds of rules about what she says, just as I do in reality. Sometimes we succeed; often we don’t. We are both works in progress. But I think Servetus as she has developed over the years is an accurate, authentic emotional portrait of me, and although sometimes she lies by omission, at other times, perhaps often, she is more honest or open than I would have been in the same situation. Still, Servetus inevitably miscommunicates, like all humans; moreover, all of online communication involves a heavy level of inferences inserted by the reader that may or not be true-to-life or productive. Servetus leaves some things open to inference on purpose.

Waiting area for the Black Box Theater.

Waiting area for the Black Box Theater.

Servetus cannot go to meetups without me, though, and I worry that people who meet me will be expecting to meet (their picture of) Servetus and inevitably be disappointed. In that sense, if you want to meet Servetus, you meet her most fully here, on the screen, because technically, this screen is the only place that Servetus really exists at all. When you meet me, she is a persona I carry with me, and I have developed a meta-position on what she writes that I sometimes discuss. But I suspect that just as Layne really missed Samantha / “Dom,” most readers would probably prefer Servetus to me.

That conflation is by the bye most of the time. Adopting this sort of pseudonymous identity has a creative, transformative quality, and Servetus has made it possible for me to do things I would not have imagined possible; most notably, starting to think of myself as a writer, and abandoning my role as a professor. On a more fundamental level, I think I realized fairly early into blogging here that once source of my deep unhappiness was that I was suffering from a strongly fragmented identity, that I had few or no real life friends who could accept all the incongruous things I am/was in combination: the Jew and the former Christian, the girl from the country who loves the city, the academic who reads trashy novels, the leftie who grew up in a conservative household and still believes many of the things she learned in that atmosphere, and so on. Nobody gets that, I think, we all dream of total acceptance and understanding, but nobody gets it, even from a parent or the most devoted lover or partner (and that failure may have advantages to it). And I have gotten a lot of acceptance here, maybe more than I could have expected or gotten anywhere else. But my pieces were so scattered that I was pretending all the time and being alone was the only relief I got from the act. What was even worse (and I sometimes still see this reflected in the things that former students say to me these days) was that people thought I was being authentic even while I was hiding behind a series of masks. Authenticity was itself a performance, which was something I tried hard to say about Richard Armitage back in the day.

screen-shot-2017-01-02-at-5-06-01-pmSo maybe the attraction of Servetus was that at least when she wrote, I didn’t feel like I was lying. What a paradox — and it may answer my question about how Layne and Samantha can claim that they are their truest selves even as they lie to each other. Blogging has taught me a lot about myself, about the possibilities and limitations of integration, and many other things, that I treasure, that I was hoping to get from this writing. I don’t know that Servetus is my truest self. But in many ways I would like to be her.

And know that I am not always. I met a fan this year, after a sort of spontaneous decision, and after we met, she said (paraphrasing), “You seem to be more forceful on your blog than you are in person.” It wasn’t a criticism and I didn’t take it that way. But it did make me think. I do wish I could be more forceful. I hope that Servetus still has things to teach me.

internet friendships in general

However, like Samantha in the play, when I started this blog — really an act of self-preservation from the storm of feelings I was experiencing at the time, the flood of inescapable thoughts — I never really envisioned what the consequences could be. Right now I am thinking in particular of the sort of contacts I would have with its readers, the sorts of comments and private messages and revelations I would receive — let alone meeting some of you. I was so focused on the consequences of the task for myself and my own decisions that I didn’t really think about other people (with the exception of Richard Armitage, but that is a long, separate story). Later, of course, the question of whether I wanted an audience for my writing, and if so, which one, raised its head. But that is a separate problem, too.

What I want to get at today is the whole question about how online, we construct (“curate”) not only ourselves to determine what others can “see” and “know,” but in order for communication to work, we add attributes to the people we talk to as well, to facilitate these discussions. In practice, the adding of attributes can occur in different ways. To name some of the possibilities: the interlocutor can tell us more about herself; we can ask questions; we can make associations based on what we know about the other person; we can decide either that we know enough about the person to make those associations; or we can decide we have enough information and do not need further additions or attributions for the purpose of the communication. As in the play, at some point we decide we have sufficient information and additional information begins to challenge the picture we have developed. Samantha / “Dom” was satisfied with her growing relationship with Layne / “Courtney,” and both women happily added the attributes the other supplied, along with their edifice of reactions to them. I didn’t make detailed notes about this play, other than remembering their mutual favorite film, but there were other things as well — foods, attitudes, a mantra, and so. Sharing these details built a solid mutual world — as each reflected on what the other said and replied “me too up to and until Samantha asked for a fatal piece of information — another picture — at which point the new information destroyed the picture the two had been building up together and Samantha bailed. The point is not only that the picture proved that Layne was not Courtney — yes, that is a concrete problem, and it’s an amusing, paradoxical moment of the play that the concrete problem isn’t that Samantha isn’t a man — but the two had never experienced each other face-to-face anyway; in that sense, they had lost nothing. What they had lost was their own private world, and the pictures of each other that they had built up for themselves. And it is ultimately this — these pictures of each other they have developed, and their loyalty to these pictures — that draw them back together.

my internet friendships

The historical Servetus.

The historical Servetus.

But I think one of the issues about Internet friendships that I experience regularly on the Internet is this likelihood / desire to / capacity to attribute that I just mentioned. My RL and Servetus’ social media presences are segregated — fewer than 2 percent of my RL contacts are shared with Servetus and fewer than 1 percent of my social media “friends” are people I haven’t met in reality — because I use these tools in different ways for different things. My RL social media are set on the highest privacy settings for almost everything, and I try to make a rule never to discuss certain things (chiefly politics) with strangers when I see them in other people’s feeds. It’s not so much that my RL social media are easy to navigate. I have FB friends ranging from the almost-ninety-year-old woman who babysat and potty-trained me in the early 1970s to former students I taught last year to exSO’s niece, and so on, people from almost every phase of my life with every stripe of religion and politics, and I talk about those things openly, and so do they, and some real misunderstandings have arisen. Rather, the feeds are set up to prevent interruptions by enraged strangers or negative attributions by people who don’t know me, and I know who the people in the feed are and they know who I am. When someone says something objectionable, I should have a series of real attributions to assign to them and when I say something objectionable, they should know who it is who’s speaking.

someone-is-wrong-on-internetSo, to give an example: if my junior high science teacher says something positive about Donald Trump, I have two entire years in his classroom to remember and consider that he is a person worth my discursive respect. If I make a statement about Hillary Clinton, he has a preteen me that he liked and remembered well enough to friend on FB 35 years later with which he can fill in the holes. It’s not perfect, and I’m not saying that no RL friends ever fight over politics or on FB, but simply that the mutual awareness and the positive attributions we make influence such interactions in a way that they do not in my fandom social media.

My experience, anyway, is that the need to attribute is much greater in the fandom context. If I look at the responses on FB to some of Richard Armitage’s statements with political components, I see very largely people I don’t know and with whom I have no history. After seven years I recognize a lot of names and aliases but not all of them by far. And yeah — I don’t like a lot of what I see there, I think much of it is ill-informed and based on false assumptions and some of it is downright disturbing. But that happens because I don’t have those attributions to make and I can’t possibly make positive attributions for dozens of total strangers with whom I have only one known thing in common. And Twitter only exacerbates this situation, insofar as it not only facilitates, but even encourages people to pop in on the conversations of total strangers simply because they share an interest in a particular topic.

Servetus’ internet friendships

578ca0b7ecadbbd66414db12492f253aAnd now it starts to get more personal, I suppose, and I beg your forgiveness ahead of time for hurt feelings that what I am writing could cause. Please be aware that I’ve always thought my Internet friendships were real and meaningful. How to be a friend in this setting is also something I’ve had to learn. I also agree with the play’s general point that certain kind of Internet-based friendships can’t be sustained under some circumstances (if there’s an expectation that the people meet, for example, other factors come into play). There’s no way to overcome a real dealbreaker if the dealbreaker, once revealed, is something that has to be present for the relationship to work, if the relationship can’t change to accommodate it.

But assuming the possibility of these friendships: over time, it’s true, just as we do with RL friends, we develop similar histories with people we meet on the Internet and we become willing to make positive attributions and construct a mutual world with them. This is true not only for the small group (in my case, anyway) who later become RL friends, but for the people with whom we interact regularly: you, the reader / commentator. Only five percent of visitors to this blog ever leave a comment. However, the vast majority of people who do comment here have become well enough known to me that I am influenced to make positive attributions — because I learn more about you or we simply have a long history of discussions. In the short term, absent signs of obvious problems (a first comment that is full of rage), I want to give everyone who is unknown to me the benefit of the doubt. A bigger problem is the accumulation of negative attributions around a particular person, because there is simply no way to get rid of the rare people to whom I have made a series of such attributions, unless they break a rule in the comment policy OR I tell them point-blank to get lost. In RL these people simply wouldn’t be friends; they would never even enter my RL social media. I’m trying now to be more forceful about the latter when it occurs in the interest of saving myself time and energy.

In the absence of real-life knowledge of a person, the positive attributions we make are central to our Internet friendships, and so, when we meet someone on the Internet and become friends only through the Internet, we always add our own value to these relationships. I think this is part of why these friendships become intense quickly. And also part of why, when they end, it’s so painful — because we lose not only the friend, but the value added that we have created ourselves.

internet-friendship-laptopThe first really strong fan friendship I made on the Internet was like this. The friend was someone who popped up spontaneously, introduced herself, and with whom I got along like a house afire. We had so much in common, apart from an inexplicable attraction to Richard Armitage: we learned that we were both religious but also critical of religion, we both cared about educational issues, we both loved music, we both loved to read, we both liked challenging discussions, both of us enjoyed thinking about politics and could live with our disagreements. She is really intelligent. She has a wicked sense of humor. I looked forward to seeing a message from her in my inbox. We talked on the phone a few times, we chatted on gmail. The more I learned, the more I liked her.

If I look at this list of affinities now, I realize it’s no more than a list of things that might match us on a dating site — many of us love to read, like music, and so on — they are things to talk about or to enjoy mutually. In the end, though, it’s the meaning that we make out of the affinities that really matters, and even as my knowledge of my friend grew, I made my own meanings out of the things she said. I gave her positive attributions in my thoughts, and she wasn’t there in real life to modify or contradict them — and I responded to the things she said by adjusting my own picture. As this was a two-sided process, she would have done the same things although I’m not sure I could tell you what her “list” of affinities with me would have included. As we both spent a lot of time at our computer screens, there were many exchanges. I communicated with her at least five times a week.

Our breakup, when it came, was tumultuous and lasted about six months. It started with something we were doing together on-line — tensions that grew out of decision-making in which I said and did things that seemed reasonable to me but made her angry. It had a middle phase in which I revealed a feature, an interest that I wanted to talk about, that she did not want to be associated with. She felt that because our friendship was widely known, our shared discussions and activities would come to be characterized by this interest and she felt that if I proceeded on the path, she herself and what we had done together would be dirtied. I had revealed a feature that did not fit in the picture she’d built up of me, and which she could not accept. And in the end, I stopped speaking to her because she also said something that — had I been paying better attention, had I not been making all kinds of attributions to her actions that fit the picture of who I wanted her to be, rather than who she is — I found inconceivably hurtful. She, like me, turned out to have qualities that the pictures we’d built of each other had not anticipated.

The end of this friendship hurt me badly. In some ways, those experiences have influenced my behavior in Internet friendships ever since. I am certainly more cautious and I try to be aware of my own process of assigning meaning to the qualities of strangers who introduce themselves in my email or on my blog. But in the case of this particular friendship, I think the wounded moments and the grief on my side stemmed not only from the problem that we disagreed or argued, or even that we turned out to be different people than we initially realized. These things also happen in real life friendships. There was an additional component: I think that when our Internet friendship finally ended, I was sorrowful not just because I lost her but also because I lost the beautiful picture of her that I had built. In that sense, intense Internet friendships can seem almost like romances, with the component of the ideal picture of the admired being more prominent than in their real life counterparts.

I don’t want to be friends with her now; the picture I built of her lies in ruins and I don’t know how I could put it back together again. (So, in case that friend is reading — this is not a public plea for a rapprochement in which I am not interested.) This incapacity is absolutely my fault; although I try to be aware of and work against the tendency, while I don’t seek payback, I do hold grudges and I do not believe in every case that this is a negative quality, as I allow Servetus to cultivate it as well. Still I miss her, I miss the feelings of those days, and I miss the picture of her that I had. I miss admiring her, I miss the wit that I experienced when I “spoke” with her, I miss how she seemed to understand me — even though she ultimately didn’t, I miss the virtual emotional or intellectual sphere in which I felt she did, even if my sadness over the lost of that picture apparently doesn’t outweigh my self-protectiveness.

So even if it’s not a capacity I share, I understand what it was that pulled Layne and Samantha back together over the screen, even after the deception had been revealed: that sense of intimacy and the sense of occupying a sphere in which one feels one can be honest and nonetheless understood without penalty. Ultimately, that circumstance was only possible because they constructed each other as people who could provide the total acceptance that I suggested we can’t find from others in real life, or even in blogging. But in a way, it’s not such a horrible thing, between Internet friends. It is not real in a tangible way; it might not survive a face to face meeting. But it does sustain a great deal of emotion, it allows a breath-taking openness, it makes friendships seem like realms of possibility rather than evaluative spaces. It allows for shared self-exploration. If it is an illusion, still it is a beautiful, incomparable one.

~ by Servetus on January 5, 2017.

31 Responses to “Kingdom Come at Roundabout Underground + me + Internet friendships, part 2”

  1. I don’t get back here often enough to read these days, but I’ve really enjoyed this write-up of your Kingdom Come viewing and subsequent personal reflections.

    I treasure our friendship (even though I dropped off the RA interest radar a few years ago) and I’m very glad that Servetus still gives you the topical energy and inspiration to share a part of your voice every day with others. xo

    • Ditto on all of what you say — I’m relieved Servetus is still around and I am glad we are friends!

  2. I relate a lot, to all of this, Serv.
    Thank you for sharing your thoughts, as I often find my own thoughts in your writing, but more eloquent.

  3. This must have been really hard to write. Hugs from me.

    • Yeah, it was. I didn’t realize how hard it was going to be until I understood the shape the post was taking. Maybe it’s easier than it would have been four years ago, insofar as a lot of the witnesses are no longer “around,” but the feelings are similarly raw.

      • Love you.

      • Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I commented on this post today. I was reading along and suddenly, ‘Woah……. I remember when all this went down in real time’. It was really, really, really hurtful for you as I recall. I, in contrast, was volcanically ENRAGED on your behalf – but well, that’s me now after all, isn’t it? 😉

        • I appreciated your support at the time. Looking at it now, I realize my picture of the other person was unrealistic and that was my fault.

    • Just what I thought, Jazzy .

  4. I’ve thought long & hard about how or whether to comment. As always I admire your honesty & the beautiful way you are able to express/define this. For me, as one who keeps her emotions hidden away in RL, the Internet has been a way to express myself, much as I do in letters in RL friends. I’m not sure why these media allow me to say things I can rarely do in RL conversations. Perhaps it is due to my upbringing, perhaps it is my cowardice, perhaps it is the general lack of an immediate response, the disjointed time line that gives me a sense of freedom. Probably all three. I am aware that you have often been on the end of my exhalations of discontent and I thank you for not judging or instructing. I hope that you get something from our interactions too.

    • Initially the draft of this post had more in it about the whole question of friendships that actually work on the Internet but (a) it was a detour from the subject of the play, which is about deceptions (b) it was unwieldy to organize — it almost needed to be several separate posts (c) I was aware that every Internet friend might see themselves in those words and it would have been impossible to do justice to all the friendships (d) the post was already 3500 words long without it (e) there were things I didn’t want to risk inspiring in the reader.

      Neither Servetus nor I makes friends with people we don’t like, and as you say, friendship is a two way street. I treasure our friendship, too.

  5. If we can think that a fandom is a “Gemeinschaft”, where fans are united, melted with the same consensus, I do not agree. For me it is a”
    “Gesellschaft” . Fans live next to each other, but they are on the contrary essentially separated, here they remain distinct in spite of all the ties. Consequently there are no activities which can be deduced from a unit existing a priori and necessarily and expressing the will and the spirit of this unity … But everyone is here for himself with the spirit occupied by the same subject of + or – common interest. No body can CONSTANTLY be strengthened with his own opinions.

  6. Je t’aime. Both the online you and the real you (so maybe I love two of you!) II’m a completely different person at work, behind my work mask, so I understand the notion of multiple personalities that we create for different environments. One thing I am learning more and more as I age: people are very complex.

    • Professional life really demands it. Something I’ve been thinking about so much lately as I do career explorations is if I ever really want to go back to that kind of setting where I have to spend so much effort hiding myself.

  7. Wow. A really fascinating, powerful post. Being so new to having any sort of on-line presence or interactions, I’ve been thinking a bit about this too. About who all these people are that interact from around the world. They all have a personality that comes through in their writing, some of which must be real. But there is a certain freedom to anonymity that allows us to be somewhat different from our real-life personae — stronger, more thoughtful, maybe. And, just like when we read a book, we have an image in our heads of what the writer must look like, sound like, be like. I can see that we could inadvertently build up that image into who we want the person to be and then potentially be disappointed if we meet up in real life. It still might be fun, but maybe only if expectations are somehow managed.

    • You might be interested in the Roundabout blog piece about online disinhibition: http://blog.roundabouttheatre.org/2016/10/31/kingdom-come-catfishing-and-online-disinhibition/

      The blog piece is more concerned with the negative consequences of disinhibition, esp the deception that is at the center of the play, but there are also positive aspects to it.

      The book thing is a good parallel. It’s like when we see the film and the actor cast in the role is just wrong for us.

      Another aspect of the “expectations management” question is that often these meetups occur because of serious effort. If you travel a long way, for instance, the annoyance or disappointment is probably greater.

  8. You are making really interesting points here – for instance the difference between Servetus’ internet friendships, and your internet friendships. I relate to all of that, although my own approach is probably different because I am essentially a lazy person. I simply cannot be arsed to keep up a different persona to who I inherently am – thus I am pretty much the same on- and offline. Hence, a scenario as described in the play, would never happen to me. I thought it was particularly ironic that Samantha was extra-outraged when she found out Laney had manufactured her persona – seeing that Samantha was an even worse offender.
    And yet, I take your point about the attributions that are added whether we like it (and force it) or not. I add them to others – forming my perception of them; others add them to me. When the perception collides with reality, it is not only the actual hurt that is caused, that makes the break-up so painful. It is also the disappointment of knowing that one’s own perception was skewed and possibly deliberately ignorant, that causes a lot of resentment directed at oneself. Plus, it also has ramifications for future friendships with other people. Once burnt, twice shy and all that…

    • I don’t think it was a matter of industry so much as there were things Servetus wanted to say that I could not say — at the beginning of blogging (before this blog) because I would have lost my job had those statements been associated with me. And then things that I technically could have said but would have been unwise to say. There is a real difference in the “free speech” allowable for people in public sector jobs. However, and additionally — because of the problem of the need to make attributions to continue a conversation, I don’t think it’s possible to have meaningful political conversation with total strangers who one doesn’t see face to face and I try very hard to avoid this when it crops up in RL FB. But it’s just a different thing for me if a random fan of Armitage makes a political statement I considered uninformed and if someone I’ve known for twenty years does so. I will react in totally different ways. (It also plays into this, for me, that I rely a lot on FB to help me stay in touch with people from the many disparate places and periods of my life. FB isn’t casual for me. It’s the main way I have to talk to some people.)

      In the case of the play — I think that your conclusion (“Samantha was an even worse offender”) is something the play wants us to ask ourselves and that’s why the plot makes her the first person to be outraged — it’s ironic / funny. I think it’s automatic to conclude that Samantha is the worse offender but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. (The play doesn’t execute that point very well, but its failure also has to do with the probable prejudices of the audience).

      • I think a lot of how we meta-behave on the internet – as opposed to RL – depends on personality. I understand what you are saying, i.e. not being able to express oneself truthfully because of a public job etc., but for me, the main characteristic probably remains – too lazy to create and stick to a different persona than my RL self. As for political discussion online – very true. Not much fun or much point in a virtual setting. Been there, done that, got the scars to show.
        Interested to know why you think that Samantha may not be the worst offender. (But you have already made me think with your reply – I may have to amend my statement and say that Samantha and Lainey are equally bad…)

  9. I think the assumption that Samantha is worse rests on two things:

    1) less important — perceived inequity between the “disability” each succeeds to hide through the deception: Layne’s “disability” of anxiety is considered by most people to be much less of a problem than Samantha’s “disability” of obesity — there’s a tendency to think all Layne has to do is calm down and she can be “normal” (and the play sort of substantiates this viewpoint by creating the impression that Layne more or less just “snaps out of” her neuroses after meeting Dom)

    and

    2) more important: the fact that Samantha is lying about being a man, so that in the typical online dating scenario where the parties specify a sexual orientation for themselves and their desired objects (man seeking man, etc.), Samantha would be the liar and Layne would be the betrayed, Samantha the perpetrator and Layne the victim. On this view, Layne’s decision to post a fake photograph seems minor in comparison.

    The first seems patently not true to me.

    The second seems open, because we don’t know what Samantha is seeking from the online dating relationship or why she chooses the male persona. The play allows us to assume that she cannot be seeking what her persona purports to seek because she is not a man, but it doesn’t say that explicitly and it doesn’t offer any alternative explanation of what she does want. Similarly, the play lets us assume that because she is considered the more active deceiver, any disappointment she may feel about Layne’s lies is inappropriate / illegitimate / hypocritical (as you yourself said). We assume Layne is betrayed because she would ultimately be disappointed (not to get what she was looking for — a male romantic partner), but we don’t know what Samantha wanted, so we can’t evaluate how badly deceived she was by Layne’s failure to be what she claimed to be. If it’s just about lies, and they are both lying to each other about significant things, Layne’s misrepresentations (that she is sane, that she is anxiety-free, that she is a gorgeous flight attendant) are no more significant than Samantha’s. And in essence, they are both lying about wanting to meet each other in person — Samantha because a meeting would immediately make her deception clear, and Layne because she is anxious to the extent of being unable to travel or post a real picture of herself.

  10. Fascinating read yet again, Servetus! It makes me reflect on my own internet friendships as well.
    Interesting how you separate Me And Richard Servetus from real life Servetus. For me the lines are much more fluid although I do recognize that we show different sides of ourselves in different settings. Food for thought… thanks!

    • I don’t know that there’s an incredibly strong separation or at least there’s a lot of overlap — but there are definitely things that belong to me (stuff that has to do with politics, in many cases, and how I talk about it) and stuff that belongs to Servetus (Servetus is much open about her fantasies, for instance, than I am).

  11. […] it remain mixed because while I agree that people who want to talk about politics should do so, in my own experience, it’s not productive to have political discussions with total strangers o…. In any case, decisions about that particular question have been ended for three reasons — […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: