Street Action / Demonstration 12/12/2008


WHAT: Street Action / Demonstration & Sign Wave

WHEN: Friday, December 12 @ 4:00 PM

WHERE:  Rural Road and University Drive, Tempe AZ

WHY: It’s fun, the weather is beautiful, and the drivers love us!

HOW: Just show up. Bring a sign or use one of ours!

RSVP here, or to be notified of future events.

62 Responses to Street Action / Demonstration 12/12/2008

  1. Uncle Slam says:

    How long will the protest last? I want to be sure to get out of work early enough to be present.

  2. Dan says:

    I sure plan on showing up to this one! Just a mile or so from this camera I got nabbed by a camera….I was doing 45 in a 45 zone! Take those $^#$& cameras down!

  3. rebecca wood says:

    i guess you guys think as long as no ones right there watching you ,you can go as fast as you like, it will be a sad day when one of your fellow speeders kill someone you love because they couldnt stop in time. think about it.

  4. See you at four til sundown. Nice weather.

  5. Kristina Wyse says:

    Rebecca Wood – you’re an idiot.

  6. Joe says:

    Rebecca Wood probably has a job processing camera citations. These ATS and Redflex employees are already sweating, as the revenue coming out of the cameras is much lower than was expected. Remember how Scottsdale said their freeway cameras were operating at a LOSS? These cameras might vanish for reasons having nothing to do with public outcry, but rather financial reasons.

  7. Uncle Slam says:

    If we can encourage these “financial reasons” the cameras may indeed come down. I propose that everyone ignore the notices they get in the mail (note – they are NOT tickets!). Force a process server to come to your door. Then set a court date. Show up to court and take up their time too. Tie up the process servers, tie up the courts, tie up Redflex to the railroad tracks.

  8. Ross from Redflex says:

    You are wrong to be so cocky. I can’t say I know Rebecca. She probably works for those dopes at ATS.

    HOWEVER, even if Redflex and ATS do go out of business, someone will be out there to buy up those cameras for pennies on the dollar and turn them back on. Until you actually take them down, they will still make money for somebody.

    Pay those tickets folks because you probably will wish for Redflex to come back when you see who might operate the cameras next!!

  9. Traci says:

    Wow, you people are idiots! No, I do not work for Redflex, I am not a cop, I’m just an every day person who HAS A LIFE! Oh and by the way, I don’t speed because I give myself plenty of time to get where I need to go. I plan ahead….now there’s a thought.

    I just walked by all of the low-lifes standing on the street corner holding signs and laughed to myself. Get a life people, there are a LOT more important things in life to worry about and spend your time on. If this is all you can worry about then you seriously need to consider volunteering somewhere or possibly getting a JOB so that when you do speed, you can pay those tickets.

    And one last note to Dan…the speed limit in this area is 35, not 45. This includes the area a mile from University and Rural, so the ticket you got is legitimate.

  10. Sick of Government says:

    So Traci.. I guess you won’t mind that camera I put in your bedroom, bathroom, living room, etc.. Then every month I’ll send you a bill for the time I spent watching. How’s that sound?

  11. J.W. says:

    Don’t give them any ideas or that will be next. They will say they are trying to keep our neighborhoods safe from drug users by putting cameras in our houses but they will fine you everytime you leave the toilet seat up or everytime you leave a knife on the counter because a child could be injured. Man I never realized how much we need to be protected from ourselves. iRobot anyone?

  12. Uncle Slam says:

    Excellent. What a turnout. Thanks!

  13. J.W. says:

    I couldn’t be there but I knew a bunch of guys who were planning on cruising around that area so I told them all to stop by and if nothing else at least give you guys a honk. So hopefully there was a group or two of Mustangs honking at you guys. I’m really hoping to be at the next one in Mesa though.

  14. dgpjr777 says:

    Go Rebecca I am with you ! These Morons don’t know what it is like to loose a loved one to the idiots out there driving above the posted speed. Those cameras have been working well in other states and they will also stay here. There are more responsible people in this state than the idiots standing out there protesting. I too laugh at them when I ride by on my Harley. look for me Morons I will be the one flippin you off.

  15. ScamerActivist says:

    Where’d you get the money to buy that Harley. Oh, that’s right, from scamming people. Just shows how smart you really are. You bought a highly overpriced hunk o’ crap. I never see Japanese bikes on the side of the road, I see Harleys broken down every day. I hope a bolt dosen’t fall out on you while cruising. Make sure you check for those prominent oil leaks, I wouldn’t want your engine to seize on you.

    Oh, and those criminals doing 67 MPH who get a “Notice of Violation” are soooooooo dangerous. The freeways were only engineered to be safely traveled at 80 MPH. Once again, your argument holds water like a paper bag.

  16. Traci says:

    Re; Sick of Government……FYI, speeding is against the law whether you like it or not. Doing things in the priivacy of your own home, e.g. eating, making love, working, etc. is NOT against the law. If you want to speed and NOT have the law watching you, then speed in your house, drive as fast you want, tear down the walls, go for it! Just don’t do it on public streets where others are likely to get killed. Responses like yours just show what an idiot you really are. If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then why do care if there are cameras on the road?

    The drivers around here are absolutely horrendous and dangerous! Slow down people or one day you’ll end up in jail for manslaughter.

  17. Ross from Redflex says:

    You are slightly incorrect. There are some types of love-making that are illegal here in the states. Just FYI on that. Infrared can track a lot. HAHAHAHA

  18. camerafraud says:

    Traci seems to think that crimes aren’t committed in homes, and throws in the nice non sequitur of comparing an apple (“everyone on the road is guilty of speeding”) to an orange (“eating, making love, working.” in a home is legal.)

    Murder, rape, and child abuses happen in the “privacy” of homes every day. Please tell me again, Traci, while we shouldn’t put cameras in every house and in every room?

    After all, if you aren’t breaking the law…

  19. dgpjr777 says:

    Why are my comments erased from the site. Talk about free speech. Go cameras and I hope they keep them all.

  20. camerafraud says:

    None of your comments have been removed… I just checked the moderation queue and they weren’t being held either (sometimes certain words or an unusual number of links in one post will trigger the spam filter).

    Don’t know what to tell you… post them up again and if you have a problem email us.

  21. Traci says:

    Let me put in very simply…if you’re not doing anything wrong in public or in private, e.g. speeding, drugs, rape, abuse, etc. etc. etc., then you really don’t have to worry about breaking the law and getting a ticket or going to jail. While we all know the legal system is not perfect, the people so committed to taking the cameras down seem to believe that the laws do not apply to them. They want to speed and NOT get a ticket…well wouldn’t we all like that, duh! Bottom line, if you’re speeding then you take the chance of getting a ticket. Period.

    Move on folks, find something productive to spend your time on.

  22. ben says:

    Traci, sorry to tell you, but the cameras are coming down. You are going to have to deal with that.

    dgpjr777 Say, this site is private property. The owner of this site has the right to take off any comments he/she wants.

  23. azmojo says:

    Traci, You think you have things figured out but you don’t.

    We are all for HUMAN enforcement. Put 1000’s of cops out there, we wouldn’t care. The founding fatherws would be rolling in their graves. This country is not supposed to be communist. If you want to live somewhere that’s “safe” because cameras watch everyone 24-7, find another country – I don’t think the US is for you.

  24. Casey says:

    “people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both”
    Benjamin Franklin

  25. Traci says:

    FYI….I could care less if we have cameras on the street or not. The point is, if you’re speeding you take a chance. Deal with it. To compare speed cameras with cameras in your house 24/7 just shows how idiotic you really are.

  26. Evapilot says:

    Traci would feel more comfortable living in England…or possibly Iran? S/he’d fit in just fine!

  27. No One says:

    Just don’t do anything illegal and you have nothing to worry about. Well, I don’t do anything illegal and I am plenty worried! You see, speeding is not the issue that has me so upset. Breaking the law isn’t either, nor is the fear of tickets. My biggest issue with this whole thing is that they want to– and will be able to– track every vehicle and every person everywhere they go. It’s not a system that just sits there and waits for speeders, it’s a sophisticated vehicle and person tracking system. You can be entirely within all laws, and you will still be tracked, with your every move placed on video. There will be nothing you can do to avoid it except to become a shut-in.

    I do not believe that anyone should have the ability to track me and monitor my every move, unless there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause of me being a lawbreaker. I am not, therefore why should I be under the microscope? Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our society, to say nothing of the right to vote on major overhaul of laws such as this. Both of these rights have been denied to date. I believe it is my right as an American citizen to be able to get in my car and go where I want without a continual suspicion of wrongdoing or illicit surveillance of my activities.

    I feel privileged to have been born in this country, one of the only ones in the history of the world where certain such freedoms have previously been granted. Indeed many people over the generations have fought and died to provide the continuation of those rights. If we allow our rights to be eroded, we will not only have lost sight of those ideals, but we will face an extreme uphill battle in terms of ever getting those rights back. It took a hell of a lot to pass these things down to me, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up the ship now without a fight.

    Oh, and just for dgpjr777– I want to protect our rights. So the children can enjoy them in the future… 🙂

    That’s the issue, and it has precious little to do with speeding other than the fact that the revenue from accused speeders will be used to fund it.

  28. Traci says:

    Evapilot (yea sure you’re a pilot!)…when you’re “flying”, why don’t you just stay in whatever country you land, then we’ll be rid of one more nutcase.

  29. ignore the tickets says:

    The public just needs to know the facts. Ignore the tickets, refuse to pay the fines and Redflex and ATS will go away. After speaking with a Redflex employee, there are multiple ways to beat the tickets without ever going to court.

  30. guttersn1pe says:

    Traci –

    I don’t break the law. That doesn’t mean I want to be monitored whenever I drive the freeways. It’s a slippery slope to go from “speeding” and “safety” to enforcing things like your 3rd brake light being out, your window tint being a little darker than what’s legal or your tire pressure being 10% below what’s “safe”. And since we have all this data, maybe we can compare license plates against those who haven’t filed tax returns, have overdue books at the library, haven’t paid their electric bill, etc. After all – these are all bad things to some degree or another. Once the government has this data, they can decide what they want to enforce. What’s scarier, these systems aren’t operated by our government but by a private corporation. Who are they accountable to? You? Me? What prevents them from giving (or selling) information on your movements to anyone?

    If speeding really upsets you so much, I encourage you to support a bill that would require all vehicles registered in AZ to have their engines limited to a max speed of 75 (or 65 or 55). It’s quite easy to do since all modern engines are controlled by computer. It’s also very inexpensive to do. If the government was so concerned about safety, why not take this approach? I’ll tell you why – because they can’t balance their budget with safety.

  31. Joe says:

    I don’t break the law and I _DO_ have something to fear. And so do you.

    I fear the introduction of mindless machines making decisions as to if I should be prosecuted for a traffic infraction (or any other kind of infraction).

    I fear being charged by accusers that can not be impeached in court, in-step with how the US constitution says prosecutions are allowed to happen.

    I fear that you do not fear this. You take a simplistic approach, that the ends justify the means. I suppose that you’d be comfortable eliminating court trials for those “caught on tape” for other crimes.

    I fear that one day, due to the lax constitutional attitudes of today, that you will one day find yourself accused with no way to defend yourself. Perhaps your car will be caught by an intersection surveillance camera in the vicinity of a homicide, unbeknownst to you. Three days later, the police will take you away and charge you with murder, and you’ll be virtually powerless to defend yourself. Remember this as you sort through your feelings.

  32. Dan says:

    I agree with Traci.
    This is just a tool for law enforcement to do just that – enforce the law. As far as “tracking my every move” – its a level of paranoia that im not worried about.

    The 101 is a different place before and after those cameras – and i like the new version.

  33. Joe says:

    Dan says:

    “As far as “tracking my every move” – its a level of paranoia that im not worried about.”

    Until you find yourself on the wrong end of the citation with no way to cross examine your accuser.

    In traffic court now, the judge does not sit in judgement, some unsworn guy squatting in a van does. A guy we can never question.

    This is not a tool of law enforcement, as the citation will never cross the desk of a law enforcement officer or prosecutor. We’ve handed the right to prosecute over to unimpeachable people who have a potential profit-based motive to fabricate evidence and drive-up revenue.

    Ever hear of slot-machine riggings? Do you think the DPS is “auditing” the accuracy of the equipment?

  34. steve says:

    My only issues with the speeding cameras are that we have no guarantee that any of the equipment is truly accurate, this company is a privately owned company. they have stock holders that have an interest in making money off of people speeding, whether or not they are is up to question. when we turn our rights over to a contractor, it undermines our constitution. A problem is involved in the fact that they, just as police, have a quota. Quite recently I got issued a citation for speeding at this camera. I have never been issued a citation because I don’t speed. When I go to court on Wednesday, I wont be sitting with a police officer to argue my defense. There will be nobody there to prove my case to. Further, you have to subpoena someone from the company just to get them to make an appearance then you have to hire a processed server in order to get any information from the company just to find out about the integrity of their software. On top of this, the court can give you no information to make a case against them. This is a complete undermining of our rights to be proved innocent in a court of law. I dont have a thousand dollars to spend fighting a ticket that is 171 dollars. All of this information should be public. The fact that it is not public rises concern that all of it is in fact faulty information. If they were so secure about my guilt, all information would be public.

    The other problem is that in many cities, it has actually increased the amount of fatalities and accidents. So when any of you are arguing for these as being a great idea for the state, you need to get your facts straight on exactly what it is doing. We are losing hundreds of millions of dollars out of our economy. This is not a U.S. company. I, for one, would rather have more police than cameras.

  35. Joe says:

    “I dont have a thousand dollars to spend fighting a ticket that is 171 dollars.”

    They count on this. That’s why they installed the cameras, and it’s why Napolitano was willing to predict revenue from it in the 2009 budget.

  36. Dan says:

    Joe – I will agree with one part of your argument – that the cameras should be calibrated/maintained regularly, and there needs to be some verification of that at the time of the ticket.

    But your argument that you have noone to cross-examine is kind of weak In My opinion. If an officer told you, that you were going 60, and you argued 55 – who do YOU think is going to win in court????

    Nothings different here from the current process – except that the officer would have to show up in court.

    Im sorry – but this just sounds like sour grapes. Even still – if you have a problem with the application and use of the cameras – than its a problem with the people using the tool, not the tool itself…

  37. Dan says:

    Steve – the state of AZ is a CUSTOMER of that privately held company not a SHAREHOLDER. Certainly, the state government should have little interest in that private company’s financial situation. If the state doesnt make a good/fair deal in procuring services for its citizens – than that is a whole different subject.

    Hopefully, the customer will be doing thier own independant audits of accuracy. That would be best for everyone.

  38. Dan says:

    Im sure there were protests when the police broke out those fancy-pants radar guns though too… Or when the police started video taping trafic stops….

  39. Joe says:


    I can cross examine that officer and expose weaknesses in his case against me. I can also argue the “prudent” and “unsafe” points and compell the officer to testify about traffic conditions.

    Did you know there is no legal link between safety and speed? When you are cited, you are not charged with exceeding the speed limit. You are charged with operating your vehicle with an unreasonable amount of speed. An officer can testify about traffic conditions and weather. An officer can also be impeached about inconsistencies betweenhis testimony and written details in the ticket.

    This is not my sour grapes. This is about preserving my right to defend myself in court.

    I once went to traffic court and prevailed in my case. I was driving on a highway at 3AM and exceeding the speed limit by 15 MPH. I was able to convince my judge that the officer had no reason to cite me except for exceeding the posted speed limit, which is not unlawful.

  40. Joe says:

    Dave wrote:

    “Steve – the state of AZ is a CUSTOMER of that privately held company not a SHAREHOLDER. Certainly, the state government should have little interest in that private company’s financial situation”

    But the vendor has a direct conflict of interest here. The more violations recorded means more revenue for them. If they are a public company, they are essentially duty-bound to find ways of driving up the revenue count., to increase sharholder value.

    I have the perfect solution:

    You camera supporters say that this is about public safety and not about revenue, right? Excellent. I’m happy to hear that. Then I propose that the vendors be paid not as a percentage of collected fines, but rather tied to the performance of the cameras in reducing accidents. If there is a net increase in accidents in close proximity to the cameras, the vendor should have to pay the state back as a penalty.

    I’m all in favor of performance-based compensation. Glad we finally agree.

  41. Joe says:

    Sorry: “Dan wrote” not Dave.

  42. Dan says:

    Joe – who is saying you wont have your right to defend yourself in court? You can still request a hearing The cameras do not change any of that – right? If you feel like you were given a ticket unfairly – than go to court.

    As for siting inconsistancys between the testimony and written details – lol – you are a lawyer – no?

    If you can beat the ticket with the judge – well, thats up to you – but that has nothing to do with cameras, except for taking away some of your lame defense strategys (that apparently work pretty well)

    So – in summary – your message is – you dont like the cameras because you dont have someone other than yourself to blame it on… nice.

  43. rauni says:

    I agree with Joe. An officer has the ability to exercise discretion, to be cross-examined.
    When I told the Judge my ticket clearly showed I was doing 2 mph, and that I did not “run the red light” but was in fact stuck in the intersection, he said he couldn’t hear my case because the “3rd party was not present”. When I inquired as to whom this 3rd party was, he became angry and threatened me with contempt. I was not contemptuous in any way shape or form, I was respectful, dressed respectfully, and simply asked “who that 3rd party might be?” I prefaced it with “Perhaps I don’t understand the process” – My license which hadn’t had a point against in over 20 years, now had 2 points against it, I paid a $225 fine, and then was forced to attend traffic school for “repeat violators” tho this was my first “supposed offense” in over 20 years. I personally have tried to dig up the information on who owns & profits from the traffic schools, and how did they get these contracts. The information seems to be well hidden as I have had little success. For that wasted day of my life, I was charged an additional $125 – because…… all red light runners have to go to school in addition to paying the fine. Then to add insult to injury American Family raised my insurance by $300 per year for this 2mph infraction. The picture clearly showed the rear of the car in front of me, and cars on either side – we were all stuck because some fool across the intersection chose not to use the suicide lane to make his left turn into the shopping center. If a police officer had been present, he probably would have ticketed the fool who was screwing up traffic by making an improper left turn, he would not have ticketed me for being stuck in the intersection because of that fool.

  44. Dan says:

    Joe – I have no problem with a different fee structure – in fact i agree with you there… So, really your problem is with the camera administration, and not the cameras themselves. OK – i can see that!

    I would personally pay a flat fee, with some discount for inaccuracy of the radar based on periodical audit – but thats just me.

    i have no problem with scrutinizing the administration of the program – none at all.

  45. Dan says:

    Rauni – it sounds more like you got a crappy judge – and a crappy situation no doubt.

    Im never going to try to paint the cameras as perfect – and this kind of thing is something that needs to be addressed more effectively if cameras are going to be part of our lives going forward. Officers make mistakes too though, and there are plenty of bad situations there as well…

  46. Joe says:


    You do not have any opportunity to defend yourself in court because you do not have the opportunity to face your accuser and question them under oath. The prosecution is essentially unimpeachable.

    If these cameras are about safety, then take away the fine revenue. Send everyone who gets caught a little nastygram reminding them to drive safe.

  47. Joe says:

    It’s about the due process of law. When one side of the case is not able to be directly examined in court, that’s legal inequity.

  48. Dan says:

    You still get your due process – and your opportunity to present your case in front of a judge should you choose. You can still defend yourself against the evidence (and directly examine it)shown to the court (your accuser) and tell a person why you think it isnt fair.

    As for not giving out fines – so THIS is what this is REALLY about. They give out fines when an officer issues a speeding ticket – so this isnt about cameras at all. The cameras just seem to be taking away some of the tricks to get out of paying.

    Sorry man – this still just sounds like sour grapes.

    This is about safety – and its about providing a deterrent to people to drive too fast (the fine). A cute little nasty gram (as you say) is a joke.

  49. Joe says:

    Getting a court hearing with a judge is not due process. There is no way to defend against a non-existent witness/prosecutor. The prosecution gets to enter evidence via electronic submission, but we are not able to cross examine this evidence in any way. It is automatically assumed to be correct. If you have direct knowledge of inaccuracy, you are free to present that evidence, but that’s pretty much the best that you can do. You can not impeach the camera about prevailing traffic conditions as you would be able to do with an officer being present. And many, many people have had citations dismissed after cross examining peace officers about road and traffic conditions. A right has been taken away.

    If you are saying that this is about safety, and not taxation and revenue generation, then you should install the “your speed” radar units. People slow down for those, even though there is no penalty associated with them. I often see people brake from 30 MPH to 25 the moment they see them in my neighborhood.

    What’s next? A brain implant monitor to send a fine every time a 20-year-old kid thinks an impure thought about his friend’s 17 year-old sister? Speeding up and down over and under the limit is not that different.

  50. Mike says:

    Of cour$e thi$ i$ all about $afety. What other rea$son could there be for the$e cameras? lol

  51. steve says:

    i dont mind the cameras its the flash at night it to bright and blinds other drivers comming down the road that has nothing to do with it it is very dangerus to other drivers that is my concern it blinds other drivers as well

  52. steve says:

    i dont mind the cameras its the flash at night it to bright and blinds other drivers comming down the road that has nothing to do with it it is very dangerus to other drivers that is my concern it blinds other drivers as well that is dangerus to every one else

  53. Helldigger says:

    The courts are rigged.

    The Cameras are for revenu generation, nothing else.

    The camera company contracts the police dept to render yellow lights to the minimum allowable by law, not the engineered phase length.

    Engineering at intersections are not covered by ADOT standards because the police take over that action and in turn, add signage and their own rendering of where the intersection starts.

    The whole idea is to shorten the yellow, make the intersection smaller and maximize the number of tickets given out to increase revenue.

    Safety is the ploy, money is the motivation.

  54. Dan says:

    If you dont think fines for Speeding tickets are fair – take it up with DPS, or the state government… they do that with officers, so the cameras are a non issue. Good luck.

    The rest of this is just sour grapes – people who dont want to get caught speeding. No rights have been taken away – its just another tool for Police to do thier job – Enforce laws.

    Like i said above – i do think that it would be a good thing to move payment away from a “commision” type contract – but thats just admin stuff… For the most part – this site is just a bunch of people who want to go faster than the speed limit, and have a way out of the ticket. Pretty funny…

  55. Helldigger says:

    Fines would be fair if the courts were not rigged.

    The only motivation for municipalities to install cameras is to raise revenue.

    Ask Janet Nappylotaxo.

    Intersections that correct engineering faults decrease accidents 87% more than cameras do.

    Intersections with cameras that don’t generate enough revenue are taken down.

    Cameras are put in intersections with geometery that increases the likelyhood for a higher volume of tickets.

    Cameras are not put in the worst intersections or poor neighborhood areas because the residents have lower incomes and can’t pay the fines.

    Cameras are put in Senior areas, where their reaction time is reduced and have higher incomes.

    Cameras have only one goal, to increase the revenue of the state or city.

    Intersections with cameras increase rear end accidents and the net affect of property dammage is increased, over accidents caused by runing a red light, in every national study ever taken.

    Over 97% of intersection camera tickets are taken in the first 3 100ths of a second. Increasing the yellow timing to the 85 percentile decrease red light running to the point that camera companies complain that there are not enough tickets given out.

    If you believe otherwise, you are an idiot.

  56. Dan says:

    So – the problem is really with the courts? IF that really is the case, than THAT is what needs fixing.

  57. Traci says:


    I’m sure glad you’ve taken over dealing with these idiots, I don’t have the energy, LOL. Way to go, great arguments! They’re all just a bunch of whining babies who don’t want to take any responsibility for their actions. Ahhh, the beloved VICTIM syndrome.

  58. Ross from Redflex says:

    Traci, even I think you’re an idiot and I love photo radar. Go to bed. You make us all look stupid here. Thanks for relinquishing your duties finally. What an embarrassment.

  59. azmojo says:

    Guys, there is a comprehensive list of reasons against photo radar at

    The front page also has an article with a link to a new US DOT report that shows that speed is the root cause of less than 3% of accidents. So much for making the roads safer.

  60. Joe says:

    Traci, us “idiots” are going to organize a winning ballot initiative and we’ll do it while going up against a very well-funded opposition paid for by the likes of Redflex and ATS.

    I salivate at the prospect of the lame “pro camera” ads they’ll create. What will they use, photos of innocent kittens or photos of kids riding their tricycles? My guess is both.

  61. Ross from Redflex says:

    AZ Mojo,

    That list is way too long mate! Do you really expect any of us camera supporters to read it? You’ve got to be bluffing, right? Besides that, we’re not willing to listen to anything that pokes holes in the argument that you are all criminals trying to harm our children and families.

    Don’t make this so complicated. Just pay up, move on and stop being so dangerous.

  62. azmojo says:

    Yes, it is quite a list. Pretty hard to argue with, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: