The Kevin Pillar Suspension: What Exactly Are The Current Societal Standards Regarding Homophobic Slurs, Civility, And Free Speech? I’m Confused.

In the seventh inning of the Atlanta Braves’ 8-4 win over the Toronto Blue Jays on Wednesday, Braves reliever Jason Motte “quick pitched”  Jays outfielder Kevin Pillar, striking him out. Quick-pitching isn’t illegal except in extremes, in which case it is called a balk.  It is, however, considered a bush-league tactic. Tempers were flaring in this game already, and Pillar was so upset by the pitch that yelled “Faggot!” at Motte. A “benches-clearing incident” ensued, called such because baseball players seldom really fight.

Nobody in the stands heard what Pillar said,  and most of the players didn’t either.  It was later lip-read off of the videotape of the game. There is no evidence that Motte is gay, so this was just a spontaneous utterance intended to mean “I don’t like you,” or something. If Motte were gay, and Pillar called him a faggot, this would be personal denigration based on a characteristic.

I mention this because calling a woman a bitch is not sexual harassment in the workplace; it’s just uncivil. Calling a man a bitch, however, has been found to be sexual harassment, as an innuendo about sexuality rather than character. It seem pretty clear  that Pillar was not making a sexual allegation.

After the game, sensing what was to come, Pillar issued an apology to Motte, saying, “It was immature, it was stupid, it was uncalled for. It’s part of the game.” Is there any doubt that athletes saying vulgar things to each other (and umpires) on the field is part of the game? I have seen players, managers and coaches clearly say “fuck,” “shit,” and “son of a bitch” for decades, too many times to count. One of my all-time favorite players, hippie former Boston lefty Bill Lee, was once caught by a face-on camera as he sparked a real baseball fight by pointing at the Yankees’ Greg Nettles and articulating, “HEY FUCKHEAD!” Lee wasn’t suspended or fined, and this was thirty years ago.

But Major League Baseball launched an investigation of Pillar. Of words. On a baseball field.   Pillar issued a more complete apology on his Twitter account:

He apparently guessed what was coming, or had been tipped off. Yesterday, the Toronto Blue Jays suspended Pillar for two games. Pillar isn’t yet in the highly-paid star category: he makes “only” $521, 000. A two game suspension will cost him about $6433 for a one syllable expletive. MLB has not taken any action, and apparently won’t.

Now, the Blue Jays, like any employer, can make any rules it chooses regarding the workplace. Obviously slurs cause bad feelings and are not the kind of things a professional sport wants its young fans to associate with its heroes. Still, any time people get punished for mere words my ethics alarms go off, and they also go off when so many people don’t seem to have ethics alarms regarding chilling speech and expression. Therefore I have some questions:

1. Pillar apologized almost immediately. Why wasn’t this enough?

2. Is this a Canadian thing? The Blue Jays put out such a quivering virtue-signalling political correctness-pandering statement that my nose hairs hurt:

3. What values? The values that say that people who use language that interest groups want banned should be slapped down so they think 12 times before they speak, even during sports contests? If the Blue Jays are so inclusive, where are all those openly gay players? Where are the female players? Does anybody think that Pillar was really expressing his determination not to be respectful to a gay shortstop, rather than just expressing his annoyance over being quick-pitched?

If the Jays know Kevin to be a high character individual, why take 6,000 away from him for something said in the heat of the moment? He’s one of the very best centerfielders in baseball, and the Jays are off to a terrible start that threatens to knock them out any chance for a championship.  It looks as if the Jays are willing to hurt a player who is a good guy and hurt its own team to play tribute to the LGBT lobby demanding a pound of flesh, when a simple apology from the player should have been sufficient.

4. So what other words are banned in baseball? “Fuck” and “shit” are apparently just fine. What if a player calls a another player a “cunt”? That is pretty similar to calling a non-gay player a “faggot.” $6000? $10,000? Will a black player get fined for smilingly calling a black teammate a “nigga” after a great catch? Is it the context and tone that matter, not the actual word?Does this mean if Pillar didn’t say “faggot” but flipped a limp wrist and said, lisping, “Ooooo, nice move, Nancy!” he would have still been suspended, while “HEY FUCKHEAD!!!” is just boys being boys?

5. How about if a player doesn’t know a Hispanic player’s name and shouts, “Hey Pedro!” A slur? What if it’s a pitcher he calls “Pedro”? It could be a compliment: Pedro Martinez is considered one of the greatest hurlers ever. If a black player calls out “Hey, Whitey!” to a white pitcher, is that a per se six grand fine? How do we know the player wasn’t also giving a compliment to a left-hander who pitches like Hall of Famer Whitey Ford?

6. Is this like sexual harassment, where the same conduct is only illegal if it is unwelcome? If Motte had laughed Pillar’s comment off and there was no “bench-clearing,” would Pillar be 6,000 bucks lighter today? Does it matter if the targeted player cries? No, that can’t be it—there’s no crying in baseball…

7. Or is this a “no tolerance” message from the Jays? Wait, now: the Tampa Bay Rays have a large, corpulent pitcher called “Jumbo Diaz.” Are fat slurs also banned? Why not? Who is the Almighty Word Arbiter of Baseball, and what are his standards? More to the point, which lobby is he trying to suck up to?

8. And speaking of sucking, I assumed that the word that got Pillar banned was “cocksucker,” which I never thought of as an anti-gay slur until Alec Baldwin, that progressive role model and hero, called a gay photographer the name and subsequently had to fight off the furies of hell…but since his party affiliation is in the right place, he was quickly forgiven. Now I’m wondering if that word would have gotten Pillar suspended. After all, Stephen Colbert called the President of the United Sates a “cockholster,” didn’t apologize, and CBS did nothing to him whatsoever.

If Pillar had explained that “faggot” was a joke (it was just as funny as “cockholster,” you must admit—not funny at all), would that have been enough to exonerate him?

9. Wait! It all makes sense now! Kevin Pillar must be a Republican!


Pointer: Other Bill


48 thoughts on “The Kevin Pillar Suspension: What Exactly Are The Current Societal Standards Regarding Homophobic Slurs, Civility, And Free Speech? I’m Confused.

  1. With a big enough chaw you can’t talk. Oops…can’t chew. Slurs are now segmented according to the SJW handbook.

    Didn’t the Jays have another player suspended a few years back over a slur in his eye black?

    • That’s likely it. There was precedent before (it was Yunel Escobar, and he had “you are a faggot” in Spanish on his eye black), so Toronto wanted to send a message. It’s a little silly, but Kevin works for the Blue Jays and is a major representative for MLB (as a defensive stud outfielder).
      We’ve also seen plently of backlash recently for homophobic slurs, so maybe Toronto wants to look proactive.

  2. Can someone explain the quick pitch thing here?

    Viewing the video a few times, it looks to my untrained eyes that the batter appeared to be ready.

    How does the pitcher and batter decide when the batter is ready?

    • I think his complaint is that batters have grown to expect a pitcher look for several seconds to receive a signal from the catcher, then to stand up straight and pause for a few seconds before moving toward the plate to throw the ball. In this case, the pitcher went straight from getting the signal to throwing the ball in a fluid in a fluid motion. The umpire is allowed to disallow a pitch if the batter didn’t have a chance to get ready, but did not do that here.

  3. Social standards are always confusing, because different groups have different social standards, as do different individuals within those groups.

    1. The apology should have been enough. I’d rank it a 1 on your apology scale.

    2. The statement is good, but unnecessary; the team is not responsible for every slip of the tongue made by a player, and since Pillar had already apologized, this statement wasn’t necessary.

    3. I think the values are tolerance, respect, and dignity. The term “faggot” is seen as damaging to a particular community, and in my eyes that makes it worse than simple swearing. It doesn’t necessarily imply hatred toward gays–my gay-loving girlfriend uses this word a lot, to my chagrin, as she was raised in an environment where this word was common, but she’s working to do it less.

    4. Context always matters.

    5. Context always matters.

    6. I don’t think he should have been fined at all.

    7. I think “Jumbo” is accepted by the player, which makes it a bit different. But you have a point: unfortunately anti-fat prejudice is seen by many as more acceptable than anti-gay prejudice.

    8. I think the term “cocksucker” is homophobic. I didn’t think “cockholster” was until I had some gay friends explain to me why they thought it was, and Colbert should have apologized.

    • Nice comment, Chris.

      I wonder where the players union is on this? I think they should come to this guy’s aid.

        • Probably right, sw, but out of character for the way the union used to defend members against anything management tried to do. I’m still surprised they haven’t already said they’re going to file a grievance. I’m guessing this sort of suspension has to fall within the purview of the CBA. Maybe Jack or someone out there knows.

    • > I think the term “cocksucker” is homophobic. I didn’t think “cockholster” was until I had some gay friends explain to me why they thought it was, and Colbert should have apologized.

      It is strange though.

      Certainly in 1970, cocksucker could likely be construed both as homophobic and misogynistic. “It is disgusting, demeaning, submissive to suck cocks”

      By 2017 though, there were seemingly honest, astonished defenses that “cockholster and cocksucking aren’t homophobic” because hey we’re all sex positive now and sucking cock is a great activity. (example:

      It’s my guess that Stephen Colbert can call Donald Trump Putin’s cock holster and not be homophobic, but that reversed if Donald Trump had said Stephen Colbert was Jon Stewart’s cock holster (or Hillary Clinton’s) it would be a homophobic slur again.

      • …because truth no longer matters to many progressives , and that has been getting worse my entire life. That now applies to many so called Republicans these days too.

      • ““It is disgusting, demeaning, submissive to suck cocks””

        How so?

        If the conduct is consensual and seen as a “lay back and enjoy this” gift between loving adults…

        I mean, when I cook dinner for the family so my wife can take a break and relax with the kids, or when my wife handles the babies at bath time so I can blow some steam on the internet, we don’t see that as disgusting, demeaning or submissive…rather as giving.

        I think conduct like that can be disgusting, demeaning, and submissive…but that depends on the relationship.

        • I think Ash was explaining the logic behind why the term is an insult, not necessarily agreeing with that logic.

    • Execllent observations, Chris. I can have fun with Jumbo all day. Talk about Context: what if Jumbo calls another fat player Jumbo? What if a player who is Jumbo’s team mate does? If a team had a player consensually nicknamed “Faggot” (I’ve seen worse; both of baseball’s deaf players were called “Dummy”), would his presence on the field change the context?

    • “I think the values are tolerance, respect, and dignity. The term “faggot” is seen as damaging to a particular community, and in my eyes that makes it worse than simple swearing.”

      In all seriousness…what are your opinions about “goddam?” Would an apology to the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities be sufficient every time it is used publicly?

      • Well, it isn’t blasphemy, it doesn’t insult our God, nor attribute to Him characteristics that are not His. It does however reflect an incredibly vain supplication on behalf of the utterer.

        • (of course for those of us who are desperately trying to teach their children not to use language with vain or useless intent, the taking of the Lord’s name in vain is pretty much the most serious violation of that virtue…

          But why would you expect an apology from a culture that doesn’t share that value?

          No, we take the risk as parents in what we expose our children and selves too and therefore assume the burden of mitigating that conduct on our own)

          • I think you’re spot on. I’m just curious about what Chris’ take could possibly be. (I don’t need or want an apology for my “community” if someone says “Jesus Christ on a stick” or whatever, and my “community” generally doesn’t make a big stink about such things.)

            • For once, I agree with tex.

              “Goddamn” isn’t a slur directed at a community–no one uses it to insult Christians, Muslims or Jews. Whereas “faggot,” while sometimes used as a careless all-purpose insult, is also often used to intentionally denigrate gays, or to imply that their target is gay, and that that’s bad. So it’s not quite the same thing.

                • Not necessarily–to me the implication is still “I’m associating you with being gay, because being gay is bad, and that’s the worst thing I can think of to call you.”

                  • That was the sub-context when I grew up, too. Cocksucker and faggot were demeaning just as Chris describes. They violated the lines of polite conversation, and was cause to corrective action if a minor was caught saying them. You could get licks in school, and much worse at home.

                    We did not use ‘fuck,’ ‘cunt,’ or even ‘bitch’ either. The relative ubiquity of ‘bitch’ these days by high school kids still sets me back, and my teacher wife says it has lost all vulgar content due to frequent use.

      • “God, damn it!” is use of a god’s name in vain as well as a command from a human to his god. This is true regardless of how the sentence is truncated, or in how trivial a situation in which it is uttered. Such a statement could only be issued by a person that is ignorant, haughty, vain, or blasphemous. Granted, most people that utter these words have no idea what they are saying. They can be excused only on this account. Nonetheless, they should be criticized for uttering words of which they have no sincerity or understanding. But, to answer your question, an apology every time “goddam” is used publicly is unnecessary. Intelligent folk already know that persons uttering such nonsense are ignorant, haughty, vain, or blasphemous.

    • “the team is not responsible for every slip of the tongue made by a player”

      As long as the player’s comments can reflect on the team’s stature in the community the team most certainly is responsible for *every slip of the tongue* made by players.

      Organizations have to react to their members conduct, all the way from a random weekend DUI through a teenage girl flipping off the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier’s sign that says “be respectful”, through a player calling an opponent a “faggot” through a low level administrator lying for his superior. That doesn’t however mean this team reacted appropriately, but that’s a different analysis.

      • Fair points. I don’t think there was anything wrong with the team’s statement, just that it was redundant after the player’s apology. And there shouldn’t have been a fine.

  4. It’s a non sequitur to the theme of your post but if we’re ever again in the same room at some point I should tell you the story of a Hall of Fame Induction Weekend in Cooperstown (Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr.) where a sentence or two of conversation while autographing one of his books a friend bought at a memorabilia store led to being approached by him on the street later. He wanted to continue the discussion, which led to spending a couple of hours in an Irish pub drinking beer and talking about baseball and life with Bill “Spaceman” Lee and his wife. I would say he’s one of the most admirable and fun to be around people I’ve ever spent any time with.

  5. I’m waiting to hear the apology from Tom Hanks’ character for telling the ump he “looked like a penis with a little hat on.” Surely some group had to take offense at that. Anthony Weiner? And by God, that was Rosie O’Donnell stepping in for Hanks as bench coach. That scene’s even funnier than I remember it being. And certainly apropos of this topic. Do you suppose Navy guys can’t curse like sailors any more?

  6. “After the game, sensing what was to come, Pillar issued an apology to Motte, saying, “It was immature, it was stupid, it was uncalled for. It’s part of the game.” Is there any doubt that athletes saying vulgar things to each other (and umpires) on the field is part of the game? I have seen players, managers and coaches clearly say “fuck,” “shit,” and “son of a bitch” for decades, too many times to count. One of my all-time favorite players, hippie former Boston lefty Bill Lee, was once caught by a face-on camera as he sparked a real baseball fight by pointing at the Yankees’ Greg Nettles and articulating, “HEY FUCKHEAD!” Lee wasn’t suspended or fined, and this was thirty years ago.”

    How is this not a litany of rationalizations?

    It’s too bad the stats are not documented, because in the, what 120+ year history of Baseball, I’ll bet excessive *public* vulgarity is only in the recent 1/3 of that history, mirroring the greater community’s larger disregard for language taboos in exchange for an embrace of thought taboos.

    • Because on field game culture is not the same as off-field societal culture. My dad, who literally never cursed beyond a “damn” on occasion, said that in the army, every word that he or anyone else said was sandwiched between epithets, curses and profanity. I probably should have made that point clearer. This really is “locker room” talk. There are ties when “everybody does it” really means everybody does it, and at that point, that’s a defined culture. It’s a bit like the banter between Clint Eastwood and the barber in “Gran Torino.” They can establish their own culture that includes permissive slurs on each other.

      Before the advent of the television coverage of every game from multiple angles, the on field, guys only culture was safe. Now it isn’t, but the players need some time to learn that the rules have changed.

      Lee’s “Fuckhead” moment was essentially censored: I saw it live, and it was never seen again. Now there is YouTube. Moments when we could read the lips of players were once considered almost naughty pleasures, as if we were seeing something not meant for us.

      • This is still just an it’s always been that way rationalization. Why on earth do we censor our young boys from hearing a swear word or uttering one if in the end that’s how we’re gonna approve of them speaking anyway? To protect the women’s ears…? Who talk like that out of earshot of men?

        Nah. It’s just ubiquitous. Not right. Maybe within rights. But not right. So long as we consider certain words to be vulgar.

        • But boys are not in the locker room, and vulgarity used as punctuation in a closed setting isn’t vulgar, or even uncivil. Words are offensive in context; that’s why it’s irresponsible to ban words…any words.

          • If the hypothetical greater community can be broken down into 10 “private circles”, and within each “private circle” they all to a tee swear like drunken sailors, what’s with the pretense of censoring that language when the 10 groups return to a public setting of the greater community.

            Who is being “shielded”?

            • Tex,

              My opinion is that we are shielding ourselves when we refuse to partake in such conversations. We damage our own filters, our own sensitivity, and our own credibility.

              I am not on a high horse here: I have fallen prey to cursing much more than I was raised to. This is to my shame.

              Anyone else should not be condemned for my attitude here, either. This is a personal conviction, a cultural setting that is learned with one’s mother’s milk (or brand of formula, in my case)

              Jack makes a good point, however.

              The German culture around Fredricksburg calls their kids ‘Shi&#223ekopf’ when they pull a dumb stunt. It is said in loving rebuke, meant as a corrective admonition. It literally means ‘shithead.’ However, call someone a ‘Folze’ and you will fight, particularly if they are female or you said it about one’s girl.

              Then again, I grew up where the Hispanics affectionately called each other ‘puta’ without thinking anything about it. It was not a slur when used in that way. (If part of a curse, it WAS taken awry) Puta is essentially has same cultural meaning as folze for the Germans, while shithead just did not compute in that culture. It was not conceptualized as an insult.

              None of the above is ‘polite’ language by my upbringing, but culturally acceptable where it is used, in the situations it was used.

          • Interesting. This brings me back to the pass black people get for calling each other “niggas” or “somebody’s bitch” or “ho.” If baseball players can’t swear on the field (context, you know), why can black people call each other nasty words among themselves (context, you know)? Aren’t these two situations parallel?

        • 1. It’s an “its always been this way and it has to stay this way.”
          2. It’s has to stay this way because the only way to prevent it, human nature being what it is, is by measures like schools punishing students for what they post and say out of school.
          3. What you are advocating, in essence, is thought control, even though I agree they are bad thoughts to have.
          4. “The Unethical Tree in the Forest” is the rationalization you are calling out. Correct. There are lots of others. Still, the difference is between saying incivility, vulgarity and gratuitous slurs are OK because they are isolated to closed cultures (the locker room), and saying that people should be punished for indulging their right to create their own closed cultures.
          5. The remaining question is whether the playing field is no longer the locker room but the greater culture. Thanks to TV, the answer is the latter. But the change was gradual, and fairness demanded a memo.
          6. Liberty is a higher value than civility.

          • As a matter of fact I’m not advocating any external source controlling anything. I am advocating that as long as we don’t want the use of vulgarity, we should expect everyone to try and control themselves regardless of the context they find themselves in and all censures should come with that attitude but no official punishment.

  7. The statement by the Toronto Blue Jays, to my eyes and ears, is completely disgusting. It seems to provide an example of how politically correct thinking and mind-control operate: top-down. Standing behind the Toronot Blue Jays is likely (ultimately) the Canadian government. If that is not exactly the case there are entire hierarchies within that society which work hard to enforce these sorts of controls. It is a symptom of the times and it is an evil. The evil is infintely worse than a baseball player using that term.

    The other aspect of this that interests me — as a ‘fu%^@$g Nazi’ I should add! — is the social pressure that has come to bear on the use of a strong term to speak about a homosexual. The term arises — usually I think in the lower echelons of society — to describe activity and orientation that is shunned. The question is Is that right and good, or is that bad? What is interesting is that — and I think this is true — homosexuals and their behavior has always been shunned, so there has never been, nor will there likely ever be, complete acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual behavior. There will always be different levels and degrees of intolerance. The culture that succeeds in turning it into normalcy, and the ways and means that this comes about, is a culture that needs to be examined, and therefor the question of toleration of such activity is the real ethical issue.

    Here, in this example, one catches a glimpse of very strict social and corporate mechanisms which, in a top-down manner, seek to bring attention and shame to a man who used the term. The game is very very serious, possibly less for the ethical issue of using a demeaning insult, but more because the corporate managers understand that if this gets picked up by social justice warrior-types, financial damage can be done, and will be done. How ugly and strange that ethics and such things are mediated by corporations in collusion with government.

    This social engineering — a collusion between government and corporations — is a definite American product and it is exported. I notice it where I live (Colombia). I am not necessarily complaining because an American consumer and mall-based cultural and social system can be said to be better than the chaos of civil war, but there are campaigns on-going here to propagandize people to shame themselves if they see homosexuals or transgenders (etc etc: the whole alphabet soup!) as non-different from any other. Yes, they are all the same when they enter the shopping mall to make their purchase, just as in America. But they are not in any sense the same when compared to normal people, carrying on in normal families.

    Over the last 4-5 years I have very clearly noticed the effect of the American public relations specifically in respect to gender and sex differences. I live next to a Uniiversity and I have watched, day by day, the deviancy-model as it is imposed and taken up by the young set. Your products are sold world-wide and by that I mean the sexual deviancy model you have designed, set up and purvey to the world. Hollywood, ‘TinPan Alley’, government attitude and publication, what is taught in government schools, what is conveyed by public relations entities to a population that has been conditioned by public relations for well over 100 years now (cf. Eduard Bernays et al), and what your talk show hosts and public figures represent as ‘good’ and ‘normal’: these are communicated and sold to other nations and, in my view, are employed in projects of mass-deception and oligarchic control. It is top-down control by cultural managers. It starts in these areas but — won’t it? — it will proceed to others.

    What the baseball player did was really rather normal. He used a term which essentially indicates a viewpoint that, in normal society or traditional society, is normal and good. It is normal and good to have that attitude (as a general rule) It is abnormal and at least questionably so to impose a politically corrected thought in place of one’s normal way of seeing. So, right there is the larger evil committed.

    It should go without saying that the corporate response, with the obvious governmental power-structure in the background, shows how thought-control functions. That should provoke reaction. But it doesn’t. Because thought control, at least for a time, is ‘successful’.

  8. Chris writes: “I think the values are tolerance, respect, and dignity. The term “faggot” is seen as damaging to a particular community, and in my eyes that makes it worse than simple swearing.”

    Isaac responds: “In all seriousness…what are your opinions about “goddam?” Would an apology to the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities be sufficient every time it is used publicly?”

    This is quite interesting to me, this declaration about ‘tolerance, respect and dignity’. The underlying issue is ulimately the velue-system that one holds to. One will have tolerance respect and grant dignity to that which one respects and to that which one feels deserves respect and toleration.

    But if someone does not share your value system, or has one which seems to you to be improperly or even evilly founded, you are duty-bound to condem them. Excuse the personal reference, I really only mean it as a way to contribute to intellectual debate and understanding and not to emotionalism, but certain of my ideas have earned me the label ‘Fu%#@*g Nazi!’ which when contrasted, say with ‘Fu#$#&g Fa^%ot’ indicate a value-structure.

    It is interesting to notice how *the Left*, generally speaking, bases all its value-conclusions in certainties about value-structures. So, those who oppose aspects of their program can immediately be assigned the very strong and potentially very damaging label of ‘Nazi’ or ‘Fascist’, yet there is no guilt-process that follows because they see themselves as *right* and the judgment is fair (and also a good judgment to wield). It is therefor completely appropriate to label someone a fascist or Nazi, yet it is cruel and insensitive to call someone, even when it is not really meant, a ‘fa%&ot’.

    To come forth as Knight in Shining Armor to defend ‘tolerance’ and other noble values when it comes to homosexuals seems to me to be connected to literally a whole cultural project of manipulating and controlling perception about values in general. So, it is not really about any particular thing, it is about how such cultural projects of valuation, and deliberate shifts in valuation, function and operate. Obviously the ethical question is coercion.

    In that general environment you are allowed to make derogatory comments about Christian judgmentalism because, in your mind, you have overturned that value-system, no longer respect it, and indeed see it as ‘evil’. Industrial-grade transvaluation of values! These reversals and transvaluations are interesting to examine and the Nietzschean perspective, always a little ironic and devlish, are interesting as well. The homosexual turns the tables on the one who judged him, and he now controls and directs the social perspective against the one who formerly condemned him! And this giant rehearsal is carried on at a national — and an international! — level.

    One cannot come to an absolute ethical decision until one has clarified, down to the most minor points, one’s value system. If one does not have, and does not know and cannot explain, on what one’s ethical and moral system is founded, one will be like a leaf blown on the surface of the water.

Leave a Reply to Other Bill Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.