Sunday, June 18, 2006

Two Worldviews - Thank God.

Whenever a lot of people begin to write a term paper or thesis, they might start off with a very common method of organizing their thoughts. It is called a “Top-Down Outline.”

It can be like a pyramid, with the one or two major topics at the apex and then the supporting or minor points below that.

If we are talking about Philosophy, “Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline, or the investigation of causes and laws underlying reality,” - American Heritage Dictionary, then we might start with what must be at the apex of wisdom and reality, and that would be the investigation of “how did we get here?”

No question has been more inciteful as far as trying to understand our existence on this great planet earth.

So at the apex could be placed the following, “God / No God”, “Design / Evolution”, “Creator / No Creator”, etc.

We might call these two conflicting positions, Worldviews. “The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world, or a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.” - American Heritage Dictionary

Everyone either consciously or subconsciously has a belief of their perspective of how they see the world. Their idea of the purpose of life or if life just is.

Notice that both are about beliefs, or “filters” with which we view the world. One view ignores God, the other doesn’t.

The thing that is most interesting about these two positions is that both worldviews have avid and often passionate supporters or followers.

If the answer as to which was right, and there is no doubt that if one is right the other is wrong, was easily discerned, then we more likely would see the application of the ever-present 80-20 rule.

But while there surely is one correct point of view, it is obvious that that worldview is not easy to discern. Just look at the split decisions, (somethimes 5-4), of the Supreme Court on questions that concern battles over which worldview is correct. We have the greatest legal minds in the country passionate about their side being right and no clear cut view.

If one was religious, one might say that “Satan is very clever and can easily confuse and deceive even the very elect, and most of the masses as well”, while those not religious will easily be led to the conclusion that “my side is clearly right, and the other side is populated with drooling idiots.”

I for one would not suggest that it is clear for most people and that is why it is important to be respectful of the other worldviews point of reference.

So, now to carry it to a conclusion of why the side with the worldview of God or a Creator is the one that is appealing to me and I am sure to others like me and it all has to do with carrying that worldview to it’s natural conclusion.

The conclusion is one that leads to Eternity, where this worldly existence is just a phase or stage that we go through. One where death is not the final phase or stage.

Now, the other worldview is one where death is the final stage. They believe that the conclusion is one of death, while the other worldview is one that leads to eternal life.

Now some would say that my worldview could lead to eternal hell. Well, that all depends upon which sub-worldview you adhere to. Some religions don’t think that hell is the place where you spend eternity even if you are judged to be evil.

Some believe that it would be unjust to have a father place some of this children in a final place that is really bad when they were being judged upon what they “believed” to be the rules, instead of what they “knew” to be the rules.

Anyway, we should all remember that those with the other worldview are still our fellow human beings and we should treat them with love and respect regardless of which side they choose. The side that believes in “death” might try to convince the other that "death" is the correct final conclusion, while the other side tries to convince them that “eternal life” is the correct final conclusion.

Again the two worldviews are meant to be hard to determine which side is correct wherever both sides are given an equal stage to show their side. It would not be much of a test otherwise.

That is just one of the many things that makes this such a great country. Freedom to have both sides presented with passion and tolerance.

So, let us remember no matter which side we hold that the other side deserves respect and tolerance. I for one would find it a dull world if there were no “Universal Opposites” or in other words no choices.

There are usually two sides to every story or issue, and while one side is right and the other is wrong, it is not an easy task to see clearly. Some are blinded by the craftiness of men.

For example, Is there "Global Warming?"

There seems to be, but the contention is in the sub topics within that major topic. Such as Gore's "belief" that a 20 foot rise in sea level will occur within a century, while others suggest 3 feet is more likely.

Another is "Evolution", there is some truth to it such as "Natural Selection." Once again, the contention is in the sub-topics like as to whether there are "Transitional Species" or if those such as the "Tiktaalik" are actually a seperate species.

Wikipedia says that Paleontologists "suggest" that it was an intermediate form, but yet the ones with a certian bias will want to "believe" they are transitional species, and those with the other bias will want to "believe" they aren't. Both sides are relying on "faith" when it comes to the sub-topics.

The old saying that the "Devil is in the details", is never more appropriate.

As for me if I were one with the other worldview of "death" being the final conclusion, I would hope that the other side was right.


At 11:27 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

This is all about the yin and the yang. Balance. You cannot have night without day, cold without hot, love without hate.

Throughout history, the most horrible things that have happened occurred at times when rulers and the people refused to accept the balance and attempted to force everyone to think and feel exactly the same way. Whether it was the church, mosque or communism, the idea that there can be strict uniformity of thought among humans is absurd and fundamentally contradicts the balance that makes the universe function.

The day our society insists there is only one right answer to anything is the day we start planning the nation's funeral.

At 9:54 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

On this we could not agree more!

Thanks for stopping by and especially thanks for the comments.

I find it amazing how some on both sides can say with a stright face... "Our side is always right and theirs is always wrong!"

That is arrogance and eliteism and assumes that the other side has no brain at all.

Both sides have valid points, and I just listed 6 of them that I belinve the left has right on StS's blog....

And here they are:

Here are the things that the left has good points about:

1. Global Warming - Major topic is correct, but does not have the "only" facts/data that are correct about some of the details. (Three feet is fact/data that could be correct.)

2. Evolution - Major topic is correct, but does not have the data/facts to support "transitional species/missing links." The "Tiktaalik" could very easily be a seperate species.

3. Patriot Act - Major topic is incorrect, but has very correct points about some of it's provisions.

4. Iraq War - Major topic is correct that we should not have gone, but minor topic about leaving too soon is incorrect.

5. Illegal Immigration - Minor topic that provision should not be a felony is correct, but many other minor topics are incorrect.

6. Big Spending - Major topic is correct, the prez spends too much money.

I have more, but I will stop here...don't want to give them too big a head..



At 10:01 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

The people who demand patriotism and demand conformity to a particular religion and argue that there is only one answer to the whole world's challenges are no different than communists - the principle is the same -- they want everyone to be exactly the same. If you are a Republican who wants everyone to believe the same or a Muslim who wants everyone to convert, you are no different than a communist who wants everyone to be financially equal.

Human beings are not equal. Never have been and never will and the point of government is to make sure those differences are balanced as best as possible.

At 11:21 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

I think I agree with everthing you just said....although I might phrase it a little differently.


Want / Force...

I think it is alright for people to want others to have what they preceive to be a better life or to stop them from going over a cliff, but the key is do we....

Use gentle persuasion, meekness, mildness and no FORCE.

Those who want to try to "FORCE" us to become all "one size fits all" are not for freedom they are for the side that wants to take away freedom.

This country was founded upon the ideal of "individuality" and not "politically correct" groupism.



At 12:25 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Mahatma Gandhi

At 5:25 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

I love that quote! It goes along with another of my favorites....

"To improve the world it takes one person at a time, and it starts with yourself." - Unknown

I hope I didn't butcher that quote.



At 11:30 AM, Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Well, I come at things a bit differently and look at global warming here... and find that although we are coming out of the 'Little Ice Age of ca. 1300-1800 we are *still* below the previous highs for this interglacial period and well below the highs of previous interglacial periods and way below those balmy normal temperatures of 65 MYA. And the correlation between carbon dioxide and global temps are only at the very lowest of temperature ranges where oscillation between glacial periods is a problem. So it is happening and the question is: so what? This is normal for this planet.

I do look at the ID argument against Evolution and find it to be scientifically non-rigorous. Indeed, this argument had been tossed aside by the 1880's in the scientific community as non-workable given then current-day evidence.

Looking for intermediate forms may be a difficult thing to do given a recent examination of Australian fauna that have, under major changes in climactic conditions, speciated from 6 species to 43 or so in the last 10,000 years. They were much better suited to the previous glacial global climactic conditions and now find their food resources dwindling and species individuals also doing so. An internal mechanism to ensure that genetic changes are generally rejected in the gonads is found to be either barely functioning or shut off and so genetic variations are happening at a higher rate. One of the small inland lakes in California saw this when it was made and a variety of fish, and I forget which one, was introduced. There the ecological niches had no competition and just about anything could work as a body plan and survive, so lack of competition allowed mutations to build up at a fast rate to the point some fish born jawless with just an opening at the start of the digestive tract can actually survive.

I find the ignorance of where the state of the art is on evolutionary theory amongst the general populace to be very high, and many people do not realize that it now encompasses genetics, population studies, speciation, genetic drift in large and small populations, biochemistry, hormone and protein structure and variation, chemistry and even, at its basics, physics.

So, to attack Evolution, you will also have to replace inheritance, allele studies, understandings of genetic diseases, genetic basis for individual susceptibility and strengths against various endemic parasites... the list is large and the only thing that fits the bill for understanding how this *works* and trying to *predict* how things happen and then *verifying* the actual data against the hypothesis is, yes, Evolution.

For what I have seen in my short life, the Hegelian/Marxist conception of argument of thesis and antithesis yielding synthesis is out of whack with human understanding. By enshrining it in our common discourse we no longer allow a room for a third, fourth or however many variations to show up and, instead, castigate those doing so as 'not taking sides'. My major complaint in the above on Global Warming and Evolutionary Theory is that those pushing for the former and against the latter have not taken a thorough and rigorous look at the entire situation so as to understand it as a complex, interworking system. This system has some simple rules, but, in their application, comes at you from strange directions that are not obvious nor apparent at the start. By not offering to explain everything and offer more capability in the doing, those that criticize build *nothing*.

When one *starts* with a dichotomous view, and allows no side variation or offshoots... well, that thrown boomerang actually does curve and swing around unlike a thrown stick. They are both made of wood. One has a hands-on understanding of aerodynamics built up over generations... the other is just a stick. Why people keep on throwing sticks around when much *better* is available is beyond me...

Science does not look for *perfection* only *better understanding* that can be verified and has outgrowths from it that can be checked against the proposed hypothesis.

We the People should know this well.

It is the very same thing we are enjoined to do as Citizens.

Build a *more perfect Union*.

We are not perfect and know not of perfection, for if we did we would not need government.

Nor do we have perfect understanding of the universe, for if we did we not ask questions of it and accept the answers from it, no matter how displeasing they are to a personal belief.

We the People are not Angels.

We can aspire to better in all we do so long as that does *not* tear down our understanding so as to make us worse off as a People.

The finger of accusation points three back to accuse the accuser and one to remind that accuser of their final fate in the ground. While held thus that hand cannot hold, it cannot grasp, it cannot be extended in friendship, nor can it do any work, save spread accusations. And those three pointing back are to remind one that they had best have something *better* to put down to build, or else they have only condemned to tear down and are, themselves, guilty of hurting and not helping.

So many looking for bright new ways to tear down the Republic.

So few looking for bright new ways to build it and make it stronger.

At 4:39 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

a Jacksonian,

Said on his blog: "On the first count, Intelligent Design, by not properly encompassing variation within populations nor the propagation of such variations does not pass the first test of encompassing Evolutionary theory."

Truth is Truth. Scientific Truth must agree with Metaphysical Truth.

I think the Natural Selection part of Evolution and all other parts of the "Theory" are true except for one thing.....

In the Beginning, all species were created by a creator. From there the adaptation, the mutations, the genetic changes, etc., all were allowed to naturally happen.

But what didn't happen is to have an animal that is not "self-aware", become one that is.

If we ignore the idea that man is special, but rather he is no more than just another animal, then we as a species are doomed, since our carnal habits will destroy us.

I think that if you look at my contention stated above, and agin here....

"In the Beginning, all species were created by a creator. From there the adaptation, the mutations, the genetic changes, etc., all were allowed to naturally happen."

Then you can have co-existant ideas that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and thus are still possible.


At 5:52 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

If we ignore the idea that man is special, but rather he is no more than just another animal, then we as a species are doomed, since our carnal habits will destroy us.

Why is that idea central to our civilization? It seems to me that this idea is the crux of thousands of years of delusions of perfection? Indeed, that idea has dominated since at least the Old Testament and humanity hasn't veered from its "carnal habits" anymore today than it did a couple thousand years ago.

At 8:07 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

The idea is that it is a struggle within humans. The struggle over which side of man will win.

The Spiritual Side that seeks goodness and the Carnal Side that seeks pleasure at times at the expense of goodness.

We could not know spiritual joy without knowing carnal pleasure, but that is not to say that all physical pleasures are bad, only the ones that tell us to over do it, things like eating too much, drinking too much, having sex with someone who is not our spouse, smoking and other things that harm our bodies in excess.

Moderation in all things is key, but humans have a way of letting the carnal side win often unless they continue to work to harness that side of their being.

If we are like dogs, then I recall how we can shirk responsibility, by saying, "I couldn't help myself, it was the "dog" in me."

Hogwash! Just like when I was smoking and tried to quit a thousand times because I knew it was bad for me. Then one day it occured to me, I wasn't hooked, I just wanted to smoke more than I wanted to quit. Then I quit and haven't smoked since.


At 3:31 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Those carnal habits are the essence of the capitalist system aren't they? I am curious - how do you reconcile an economic system that is explicitly based upon greed and selfishness with "the spiritual side that seeks goodness"?

At 10:14 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Wow! You usually ask really good questions, but this has to be a "great" one. :)

I will try to answer.

Adam Smith said, (If I remember correctly), something about each person doing what is in his/her best interest.

Through competition we find that people will try to provide a better product than otherwise might be possible without competition.

So, even thou it is baased upon selfishness, isn't the fact that people who want to "go to heaven", or to "reside with Allah" doing it for selfish reasons?

In other words, selfishness is not always a bad thing. It can cause us to behave as a better person if doing so will cause us to succeed moreso than we might otherwise.

Providing a customer with a smile when we provide a superior product or service is actually serving mankind.

It is uaually at places without competition where we encounter the "angry" or "complacent" or even the "disinterested" providers.

By saving for a rainy day and to help our offspring, we make a better world for our families and thus contribute to happier people in the world.

I hope that had some interesting thoughts.


At 8:36 AM, Blogger A Jacksonian said...

FAR - For truth to be truth there needs be rigorous logic behind it and an examination of basic assumptions. By seeing variations over time in the fossil record and seeing how such variation play out via genetics, we come to understand much about species and speciation. What is seen, over time, is not a radiation from a set event suite of species but an accumulation of changes over time to known chemical processes that then become biochemical by becoming self-replicating. This does not lead to the beginning state you describe, but something other.

I am not uncomfortable with that as I have no preconceived notions of what that beginning state was, although the conditions of it become clearer via examination of the fossil record, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, physics, and astronomy. It is endlessly fascinating and does not heap up one type of life as better than another, but recognizes differing capabilities across all life.

From what I have seen on a personal basis is that metaphysical truth is less rigorous for description of physical things than for things of the heart and spirit. I turn to metaphysics for those things, but not to find out orbital mechanics, genetic diversity, radioactive decay curves, and the such like.

I also discuss what something takes to become a rigorous scientific set of accepted facts and suppositions.

So I fully treat Intelligent Design to this and will give the full quote of that paragraph:

"On the first count, Intelligent Design, by not properly encompassing variation within populations nor the propagation of such variations does not pass the first test of encompassing Evolutionary theory. Problems in structural design of organs, overall use of body-wide systems and explaining the utility of multiple copies of genes in a genome are not well covered by Intelligent Design, but easily so by Evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains why certain genetic traits are retained and others not over time. In particular, genetic analysis of life forms is proving out how genes and genetic material move within groups to cause species to occur. By including an inheritance mechanism and making it a part of Evolutionary theory, we gain understanding of commonality between species in families on the tree of life. This has spurred development of such things as Cladistics, which does an excellent job of tracing common ancestry through speciation events and pointing to genetic factors as the underlying causes."

But then I am holding scientific theory and checking to a different standard than metaphysical or everyday theorizing. Intelligent Design asserts without backing... Evolutionary theory examines the record and what we know and attempts to explain it so as to build the knowledgebase and offer ways to get new insights and to test older assumptions. Newtonian physics lasted for quite some time until it decayed with optics, radioactivity, and high speeds. Indeed, Newtonian mechanics *always* had a problem explaining the orbit of Mercury and the Jovian satellite system, but the accepted problems were put aside due to the utility of it in everyday life. Einstein set about a new framework of understanding that had to encompass ALL of Newtonian mechanics that worked and explain why the things that didn't work actually did work inside the new framework and then offer means to test out this new framework to demonstrate its validity. By offering *none* of those, Intelligent Design is *not* science.

Intelligent Design *asserts* but does not build upon the existing framework of scientific understanding nor offer ways that it may be invalidated.

Evolution examines and tries to explain and allow new ways for it to be tested and validated.

Science allows growth via finding out things that do not accord with our understanding of the universe and then attempts to find ways to change that viewpoint so as to explain the universe in a better and more consistent fashion.

Metaphysical areas allow us to explore our own conditions internally so we can better understand ourselves and harmonize ourselves with our lives.

That is how I approach them, at least... and while they can each be true for their own domains, I seek not to enforce one upon the other, but live to give an accordance between them so I can better understand my place within this universe. They use different modes for different areas and come to differing conclusions based on what is being looked for.

I do not look for evolution in my heart, save as how it changes in my life. To do so is hubris to say I can measure the heart and soul by external means and, in that doing, lose the true measure of myself.

Nor do I wish to imprint upon the vastness of the universe a postage stamp view of it and lose its full glory for that limited conception of it. That is pure hubris to say I can know the vastness of the unknowable before stepping foot in it.

The first is hard as we each are our own hardest taskmasters, needing to live within ourselves and measure ourselves against the greatness of all. And the second is just as hard as one sees the greatness and realizes that, in that knowing, one is not diminished with it no matter what the final scale of the individual actually *is*.

At 10:15 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Said: "Problems in structural design of organs, overall use of body-wide systems and explaining the utility of multiple copies of genes in a genome are not well covered by Intelligent Design, but easily so by Evolutionary theory."

How so? Perhaps the creator of all species can use DNA designs from different species to make new ones.

He doesn't, as the old saying go, have to reinvent the wheel.

I see no reason to believe that is not the case, nor do I see it as proof that it is not the case.


At 7:06 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


Here is the core of my belief.

The greatest question of all time is "Is there a God?" The answer is either yes or no as far as reality goes. There may be other answers as far a preception goes like "I don't know", but in reality, he either exists or he doesn't.

I believe he does.

On this one question hangs the things that support that primary core belief, such as the next great question "Did God leave us clues to his existance?"

I believe he did.

And then the next one.."Is the Bible Infalliable?"

I don't believe it is, but it is the best we have to try to improve the human condition, for without people restraining themselves because of thier belief in a "consequence" after life, the world would just be everyone in the state of being..."Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all die" and there would be few who would restrain themselves.

Therefore I must believe that since the Bible says that God created each species seperately, I must believe that it is so, and like a scientist, I try to fit the facts around that theory/belief, as a theory is no more than a belief in the beginning.

Make sense?


At 9:14 AM, Blogger A Jacksonian said...

FAR - The state of the art for evolutionary theory and genetics explains that the multiple copies of genes within the genome that are *not* activated during lifetime serve to both allow variation of necessary genes without harming the utility of the base gene and to have a copy, albeit degraded over generations, of that original gene if it becomes damaged. ID theory asserts that all species are *set* without variety and thus have no need of variety nor variation within a genetic population. The assertion that evolution puts forth is that variety via mutation occurs in populations and offers a spectrum of selective possibilities that, so long as those variations do not hinder reproduction, are available to changing climactic and ecological conditions. If a species is *set* there is no need for these extra degraded copies of existing genes and genetic homeoboxes within the genome. By asserting *set* species ID does not explain this, while evolution can.

As to the argument for genetic variation on a common template method, one must use cladistics for this formal analysis. Once done an individual becomes aware that depth and width of branching, both for extant species and extinct species points to a wide variation of species not accounted for in the set species concepts of ID. Again, this theory is played out in the existance of strongly conserved genes that encode for things that are no longer required by an individual species. The triggering gene suite for the homeobox of genes that allows cell differentiation for sight and vision is strongly conserved across phyla. The earliest representation of this is in blue-green algae, which has some small need of it. The strength of encoding for this, even with minor variations that are traceable through lineages, is strong. So strong that a fruit fly gene for this can replace a mouse gene and still bring forth properly functioning and structurally sound eyes in the mouse. In cave species that live in deep darkness and have no access to light, this gene homeobox is no longer conserved and becomes as heavily degraded as an other gene suite that has no utility for final individual survival. The basic encoding can still be demonstrated for similarity to their light dwelling cousins, but the fact is that by serving no survival purpose, this gene suite is no longer selected for nor protected.

Since this is a totally unnecessary function Intelligent Design has no answer for its presence beyond the: "No one can know the mind of the Creator". Unfortunately that is categorically *not* attempting to explain presence or absence of genetic material and why or why not it is conserved nor does it address these things. It *is* an appeal to authority, and then an unbacked assertion lacking any means to check it or make it a rigorous part of a repeatable system that can be understood. Evolution, genetics, biochemistry, and physics all take this into consideration and offer something that attempts to *explain* and be testable and falsifiable. An appeal to authority is an attempt to end discussion by saying something is "Just So". Science wants to know *why* and how that fits within a broader context of things.

Like much else in life I come at things from the oblique angle for intellect, but head on for definitional problems. The mathematics of Kurt Godel demonstrate that within a system of mathematics there will always be truths that cannot be derived from the axioms of that system. Thus, mathematicians look to making different mathematical systems that arrive at different truths in a testable way with actual, mathematical, proofs. There are times that one of these new forms of math can be reconciled with the larger existing base and shown to be a mere offshoot of it that could have been known, but the means to get there would have been extrmely tortuous.

Now the thing you put out, that a Creator created each species separately, can actually be *reconciled* with evolution if one accepts that speciation is based upon common, shared heritage and uses variation to allow for differntial reproduction for the exploitation of ecological niches. As a metatheory that lets a Creator decide upon *process* but not upon *result* this makes a thoroughly valid and logical system that is in high degree correspondence with what is actually seen.

Extrapolated outwards, this makes the Creator one who makes a universe in which life, and even intelligent life, is possible but then lets this system run on its own as it was well made and does not need adjustment.

Now, this is running smack-dab into information theory and processing theory for computers! Because of Moore's Law (or postulate thereof) and Kurzweil's extrapolation, it has come to the attention of mathematicians and physicists that in a relatively short period of time we will be able to create mathematical constructs running on computers that will encode entire universes and their physical laws and allow them to play out. These will be simulated universes to us, but to anything *inside* those universes they will appear to be *real*. Further, once we get the capability to do this once, it becomes easier and faster to do it again and again... until the number of simulated universes expands at an exponential rate. And once any one intelligence has *that* level of capability, the number of possible universes expands to the point that the probability of any single universe being the *real* one disappears into an infinitesimal number.

Physicists point out that there are some physical constants, first described by Planck, that are definitional to this universe. Information theory indicates that as one approaches the actual limits of a simulated universe at that smallest of scales, the simulation will behave erratically and give non-sensical and non-repeatable results as the limits of the simulation have been reached. And the breaking point comes when we get the ability to run an entire simulation of a universe.

Call it 100 years or so until we know, for sure, if this is a *real* reality or a *simulated* reality.



You say potato, I say potahto...

Ah, science... never what you expect it to be.

At 11:00 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...


"ID theory asserts that all species are *set* without variety and thus have no need of variety nor variation within a genetic population."

Just because someone says the above does not change the fact that "the creator of all species can use DNA designs from different species to make new ones."

I really don't care what "some" ID people say, it doesn't change the possibility of what I assert.

I don't think people should try to use "Science" to explain something like "life" that science has no clue as to even when it starts or how it happens.

I happen to think that we are two people, a spirit person and a material person and that when the spirit enters the body, it becomes alive, and when it leaves the body, it becomes dead.

I think that the spirit is what gives the brain it's conseicousness.

Read the book "Life after Life" and you will see how all 100 of those people who experienced "clinical death" had the same "out of body" experience.

How is that possible unless they were the spirit and were "looking down" on their material body, which is how they explained it.

Make sense?



At 7:51 PM, Blogger Franco said...

very nice blog!
My name is Franco Di Giacomo
Would it make fun for you,
to make money in the Internet?
(Income for Life!)
NEW Business, see the GDI video


Post a Comment

<< Home