Who is Graeme Bird

To paraphrase Hamlet: Graeme is a man, take him for all-and-all. We shall not look upon his like again.

OK, I admit. I have no idea who he is. From the blogosphere I can tell you that he is annoying, arrogant, rude, uses caps lock too often, writes long and nearly unreadable blog posts and comments and occasionally uses the word “stupid” as his entire argument.

But he also seems to be genuinely smart, amuzing, libertarian and has the respect of Jason Soon. And as I am (and was much more in younger years) also annoying, arrogant and rude then perhaps he deserves to be taken seriously.

I said he is a libertarian. True. But there are a few blind spots — primarily his love for government tax and spending so long as that tax is used to defend UN resolutions, as a foreign aid proxy, to help him escape his irrational fears or on multi-billion dollar government projects that create a net cost. So, as an act of private charity (no government subsidy requested or received) I have decided to help the promising boy develop into a real libertarian man with appropriate skepticism of government and love of freedom.

Game on.

60 Responses to “Who is Graeme Bird”

  1. Jason Soon Says:

    The collected writings of Graeme Bird on Strike the Root can be viewed here

  2. ozrisk Says:

    John,
    I look forward to your analysis of GMB’s monetary policy thoughts.

  3. Jason Soon Says:

    Yes! We must have another money thread. It can be Fyodor-free so GMB can’t have any excuses about ‘threadwrecking’ this time.

  4. graemebird Says:

    Dude that was great.

    I saved that Strike-The-Root information and its the first time I’d been able to make it through the block in a long time.

  5. Jason Soon Says:

    Your writings should be preserved, archived, indexed and annotated for posterity, Graeme.

  6. graemebird Says:

    Can you do it?

    You’ll get a cut of course.

    Should revenues acrue.

    I’m way too disorganised

    and there is stoushing to do.

  7. Jason Soon Says:

    I’ll see what I can do, man.

    Let it be known herewith that I am the literary executor of Graeme M. Bird’s estate.

  8. graemebird Says:

    AUTHORISED.

    GMB.

  9. Liam Says:

    game on

    Dear God, no. If you say that three times you’ll summon up the real Satan of fucking up blog comments threads.
    Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  10. whyisitso Says:

    Does this mean we get catallaxy back?

  11. Michael G Says:

    Allright, A one stop shop. Nice one John,

    I echo Whysitso
    And i echo Liam.

  12. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    I’m all for a money discussion.

  13. Jason Soon Says:

    More of the collected works of Graeme Bird
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CO2-Lord_Of_Creation

  14. Jason Soon Says:

    so no more entries.
    is our boy’s education finished?

  15. John Humphreys Says:

    Well — he and I probably agree on most issues. If we want to keep disagreeing all I can do is keep posting comments about him being scared-shitless of the non-existent terrorists under his bed.

  16. Jason Soon Says:

    You’re against fractional reserve banking too?

  17. John Humphreys Says:

    Oh. I never really followed that debate. Bird isn’t the most reader-friendly writer out there. About the worst actually.

    No, I’m not against fractional reserve banking. But I also couldn’t be bothered debating it. The consequences don’t seem very big to me, especially when compared to invading another country or spending $50 trillion on AGW.

  18. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    I think a naive ban on fractional reserve banking would be massively destructive unless you created loopholes that circumvent the ban. It seem like one of the nuttier aspects from the Austrian crowd (mostly Rothbard).

  19. graemebird Says:

    No it wouldn’t Terje.

    If the total volume of spending under fractional reserve tanks then we are in trouble. And if the total volume of spending under the more honest less socialistic 100% backing tanks then we are ALSO in trouble.

    But 100% backing is only likely to tank in transition. Whereas fractional reserve money can implode at any moment without the socialist backing.

  20. Terje Petersen Says:

    Graeme,

    All you are saying is that if the economy tanks then we are in trouble. Well no kidding. However banning fractional reserve banking is guaranteed to cause it to tank because it entails unilaterally cancelling credit contracts and prohibiting their reformation.

    Nobody in the commercial world makes promises that are really 100% guaranteed. And even when they claim that the deal is 100% guaranteed they should be policed after the event as a breached of contract not ahead of time as an act of fraud.

    If I am a bank and you give me $100 in a deposit account and I promise to pay you cash on demand then it is my performance not my processes that you should judge me on. And if you actually read the terms of your account you will find that banks frequently qualify the promise anyway.

    The Rothbardian obsession with fractional reserve banking seems to stem from the observation that banks sometimes go broke. They miss the fact that when it happens on any significant scale it is almost universally due to the government doing extreme things with the unit of account and in the process unilaterally revaluing credit contracts. In essence they have swallowed the governments scape goat propaganda and put the blame at the feet of private banks that should belong at the feet of government monetary shenanigans.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  21. graemebird Says:

    “However banning fractional reserve banking is guaranteed to cause it to tank because it entails unilaterally cancelling credit contracts and prohibiting their reformation.”

    Right. Well of course that would be right if I was interested in just banning it overnight.

    The idea is to get the Reserve bank to establish a low RAR and to increase it whenever they deem it necessary to reduce demand. And to never reduce that RAR. But to buyback debt whenever they deem it necessary to increase demand.

    After some time you’ll wind up with 100% backing. And we ought to stick with that.

    Its not about swallowing any propaganda. And the government generates no propaganda about fractional reserve being a bad thing.

    This is a dumb-Humphreys argument you are pulling here.

    No its just from the history of fractional reserve. It causes trouble and we don’t need it.

  22. Terje Petersen Says:

    A reserve asset ratio of 100% implies that you want to effectively outlaw banking.

    The mandatory RAR should be 0% and banks should be free to manage their cash flow like any other business.

    The quantity of base or broad money should only concern the RBA as and when it translates into a shift in the value of the fiat unit of account. And it should restrict itself to modifying base money only.

  23. graemebird Says:

    No not at all.

    The way the banks run their act now would be fraud in any other business.

    And a 100% RAR only relates to on-call-cash.

    You see right now the banks borrow short and lend long. Ergo without socialism they would all be bankrupt.

    The alternate system is that they must be like all other business. And if they don’t wish to go broke they would borrow medium and lend longer.

    They would act in such a way as to be totally solvent under all situations.

    The move from 100% backing to socialist money is effectively a subset of Greshams law. The practice of fractional reserve is not at this moment fraud. But it starts off that way and once it does start the bad money drives out the good.

    If we want a free enterprise money we have to realise that there are some forms of fraud (not fraud right now mind you) that we need to be more-then-normally more vigilant about.

    If we get to 100% backed multi-metals or 100% backed growth-deflation-fiat then after a time it will be only natural to think of fractional reserve as fraud and we want to keep things that way or else we will have to settle for the socialist and incredibly sub-par financial system we have now.

  24. Terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Graeme,

    There are risks in borrowing short and lending long. However they are managable risks and we are all consenting adults so where is your objection? If you want your deposits at the bank 100% backed then you can get a safety deposit box. Like most people I deposit my money in the bank knowing full well that it is lent to other people. Like any other investment I accept that there are risks.

    Matching short term lenders to long term borrowers and managing the risks is the major service offered to the market by banks. Trying to do this sort of thing without such specialist help would be a nightmare.

    I am pretty interested in seeing gold weight or some commodity basket used as the main reference unit of account. However this does not necessitate 100% backing. In fact a central bank can achieve a gold standard whilst owning no gold at all and with only very minor structural changes.

    Lots of businesses make promises that entail some risk. Banks are not in any way unique in this regard.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  25. John Humphreys Says:

    I can’t see how fractional reserve banking is fraud. They just sell and buy financial products. Unless you believe financial products should be illegal?

  26. graemebird Says:

    “There are risks in borrowing short and lending long. However they are managable risks and we are all consenting adults so where is your objection?”

    They are not manageable without socialism. And without socialism if you and me did it…… THATS FRAUD.

    “I can’t see how fractional reserve banking is fraud.”

    IT ISN’T FRAUD. And I didn’t say it was fraud. Its socialism.

    I fucking must have said ten times already that its not fraud.

    Try and keep up 007.

    I can see you are just off the plane.

  27. Terje (say tay-a) Says:

    They are not manageable without socialism.

    I don’t see how or why. We had fractional reserve banking for centuries when gold was the base money. They had money lenders in the days of Jesus. What aspect of socialism do you think fractional reserve banking depends on?

  28. graemebird Says:

    Yes we did. But when we had fractional reserve we had a business cycle. Which is really a banking cycle. And it would be much worse now in the computer age.

    You cannot make up the lost ground in terms of investment momentum when you have a crash.

    As to socialism we have all sorts of regulations stacked in the banks favour.

    1. Currency debauch.

    The banks will run ahead creating money. But anytime things are looking a bit edgy the reserve bank will release an enourmous amount of cash, effectively bailing their ass out.

    2. Implicit/Explicit guarantees.

    3. Legal Cover…. Fractional reserve has a legal monopoly.

    4. Low interest loans from newly printed cash.

    5. The ability to suspend payments without closing its doors.

    6. Tons of regulations.

    7. Legal tender laws.

    Each one of these banks is technically bankrupt or (more correctly) would be if the same rules applied. To practice fractional reserve is to operate under conditions of bankruptcy.

    No other business is allowed to do this.

  29. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    1. I don’t think the RBA does this. However assuming that they do why is it a problem? And if they stopped doing it (ie stopped the socialism) how would banks respond (ie would they selfishly go broke or what)?

    2. Moral Hazard. You get it in car manufacturing and any farming and any number of other industries. I agree we should dispell any notion that the government will save depositors if their bank fails. However increasing the RAR as you propose is just encouraging people to think that the government is looking out for them. You want more socialism to protect people from socialism?

    3. Lots of independent private banks do it. Where is the monopoly?

    4. Newly printed cash is not lent into the market. It is used to buy bonds, gold or foreign currency at the prevailing market rate.

    5. Huh? Please explain.

    6. I’m all for de-regulation. As opposed to those that want to regulate RAR and outlaw the practice of borrowing short and lending long.

    7. They defend the status of currency not fractional reserve banking. Bank created credit is not legal tender. Nobody is forced to accept EFT as a means of payment for debts. I’m all for abolishing legal tender however I don’t see that it would have any impact on fractional reserve banking.

  30. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    To practice fractional reserve is to operate under conditions of bankruptcy.

    Complete rubbish. Go get a copy of the annual report for any Bank and look at the balance sheet. None of them are insolvent.

  31. graemebird Says:

    I didn’t say they were insolvent UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS OF SOCIALISM.

    Remove all the socialist measures however. And then each and every one of them would be insolvent.

  32. Terje Petersen Says:

    What aspect of socialism do you think fractional reserve banking depends on?

  33. graemebird Says:

    1. I don’t think the RBA does this. However assuming that they do why is it a problem? And if they stopped doing it (ie stopped the socialism) how would banks respond (ie would they selfishly go broke or what)?

    It may not be a problem. But you’ve lost the topic. The topic was “What aspect of socialism do you think fractional reserve banking depends on?”

    Better to focus laserlike on one point at a time. Or you are just likely to stooge yourself. For some reason people go all soft-headed when the topic turns to money.

    So try and stay focused.

  34. graemebird Says:

    “What aspect of socialism do you think fractional reserve banking depends on?”

    See how you’re stooging yourself already?

    You asked me that and I gave you a big list of them. And then you lost track of what the list was for. Then you asked me the same question again.

    Stay focused.

  35. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Okay lets be more laser like.

    1. I don’t accept the idea that fractional reserve banking depends on the central bank periodically flooding the system with cash. It may happen but it is not why fractional reserve banking came into being. Fractional reserve banking does not even depend on a central bank or a fiat currency.

  36. graemebird Says:

    The history of banking doesn’t support your contention. That is but one way that our current socialist system bails out the banks. But there are others.

    The history of banking is one long line of banking failures, special privelidges and more failures and more special privelidges.

    And the root cause of it all is fractional reserve. Which is inevitable by the way. Since the temptation to cheat is going to be just too great.

  37. Terje Petersen Says:

    The history of banking is not one big line of failures. Bank failures are incredibly rare and always have been. They are big news when they happen. I don’t accept your characterisation of history as being accurate at all. There are times when several banks failed in tandem however the root cause was not fractional reserve banking.

  38. graemebird Says:

    They aren’t the least bit rare when you have fractional reserve without socialist measures.

    You have to stop bouncing from foot to foot here.

    Under our current system the banks almost CAN’T go broke. They are covered by the printing press and by the government. The government will not let them go broke.

    Under free enterprise conditions there will be one collapse after another if fractional reserve is allowed.

    Thats the history of it.

  39. Terje (say tay-a) Says:

    They aren’t the least bit rare when you have fractional reserve without socialist measures.

    Care to name a few historical examples?

  40. graemebird Says:

    Well.

    Name a time where you had banking starting up without special privelidges and socialist measures.

    And that time or a generation within it will be a case in point.

  41. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Graeme,

    It is your theory not mine. If you want to ban something then I think you should make the case. I’ll play ball but you have to name the epoch that supports your case.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  42. graemebird Says:

    I’ve made the case.

    And its not necessary to spell out the time periods. Because this all starts every time banking starts like night follows day.

    Jesus Desotos massive book on the subject has just been translated into English and is available for free at Mises.Org.

    But in any case here is Gerrard Jackson pointing to a few time periods.

    http://www.brookesnews.com/061610medievalbanking.html

    But the same process happens whenever banking starts up from scratch again.

    And at the start of the process fractional reserve is always fraud and seen to be so.

    Its not fraud now because the Greshams Law process is complete but this process brings in the socialism in banking (and perhaps in wider ways as well) with it.

    The two things are inseperable. Either fractional reserve will lead to banking cycles or it will lead to a socialist banking setup.

  43. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Outlawing reserve ratios below 100% seems to be socialism from the start.

    I read the article by Jackson and a review of the Desoto book at mises. I remain unconvinced. There are some examples given of banks being insolvent, however banks being insolvent is not evidence of fractional reserve banking causing insolvency or of insolvency being widespread. When you assert that the start up of banking is followed by bank failure like night follows day this is probably true. Every new industry has a high rate of failure whether it is car manufacturing in the 1800s or Internet companies in the 1990s. However just because an industry involves a high rate of startup failures does not mean that the essential concept is flawed, merely that execution is difficult and experience is useful.

  44. graemebird Says:

    But one doesn’t need evidence that fractional reserve banking means the banks are insolvent.

    It could not be more obvious.

    Since if folks claimed the money they would not be able to give it to them without the backing the government now gives them.

    If we had 4 different monetary metals and many different designs of coins…. perhaps laminated with a banks computer chip imbedded.

    Or however we had it and we were used to very low nominal interest rates and falling consumer prices most years then not…

    Then it would not be hard for you to see what a gyp fractional reserve is under capitalism.

    Because you aint handing the banks your gold coins for safe-keeping under those circumstances.

    It would never get off the ground in an honest form under conditions of vigilance against its dishonest forms.

    But then there are exceptions. I mean its plausible that an honest version of fractional reserve….. That is to say an IOU + RP
    …. That is to say and IOU plus a redemption on demand promise.

    Its plausible that this financial product could get off the ground if there was powerfully high interest rates due to war borrowing. Or if there was a high rate of monetary growth due to some massive gold find.

    But you see these situations are when you really don’t want to be introducing fractional reserve.

    So it isn’t a natural feature of capitalism if this form of fraud (it always at least STARTS as fraud) is guarded against vigilantly. And yet when the last sentence DOESN’T hold up you would want to avoid fractional reserve like the plague.

    Better to just ban it outright until such time as we are reaching some idealised world wherein we are about to hit anarcho-capitalism.

    You aren’t an anarcho-capitalist are you Terje?

    You see people always put the anarcho-capitalist hat on when it comes to this subject.

    Why not accept one or two level-playing-field type regulations if it means we can have a superior free-enterprise money instead of the socialist setup we have now?

  45. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Graeme,

    Bank accounts are not currently backed or guaranteed by the government in Australia. If the bank fails you lose your money.

    There is no fraud in fractional reserve banking. If everybody seeks to withdraw all their funds from the bank on the same day then the system fails. However if everybody tries to leave town on the same day the road system fails. If everybody tries to phone Dubbo next Tuesday the phone system fails. If everybody tries to access the BBC website tonight the Internet system fails. And if everybodies house burns down next month the insurance system fails. The fact that systems built to provide a commercial service can fail does not mean that such systems are founded on a fraudulent basis or that they are insolvent.

    Failure to honour a promise is not fraud. It may be a breach of contract but that is a separate matter.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  46. graemebird Says:

    Yes they are backed.

    Because if things are getting too hairy the Reserve Bank will release any amount of cash to the system no question at all. They will get the cash there in helicopters if they have to.

    “There is no fraud in fractional reserve banking.”

    No there is socialism today.

    Its fraud under free enterprise conditions. And under current conditions its not fraud its socialism.

    You are jumping from one foot to the other here and forgeting whats gone before.

  47. Terje (say tay-a) Says:

    Because if things are getting too hairy the Reserve Bank will release any amount of cash to the system no question at all.

    It is very questionable. Plenty of financial institutions have failed and the government has not bailed them out. The RBA is notionally independent and it’s brief is to combat inflation not bail out failed banks.

    If one of the major banks became insolvent then the correct response would be to allow them to go into administration. Their loan book would get sold off and the depositors would get a portion of their investment back. If the depositors got 100% back then the shareholders would get what was left (probably not much).

    There is certainly moral hazard in the setup however that is true any time there is a calamitous event that hurts lots of people and the government has access to the taxpayers pocket. The government should stay out of it but there is always the risk that they won’t, however the risk that the government will be stupid is real under any banking system.

    In the USA one could more reasonably make the claim that the banking system entails an element of socialism. Because in the USA the government does guarantee the money of depositors (up to certain limits). However this is not relevant to the Australian situation and is certainly not relevant in a free banking environment.

    Its fraud under free enterprise conditions.

    You have not made that case at all. What you are saying in this regard is utter nonsense. Fraud entails intentionally missleading behaviour. Borrowing short term and lending long term (ie what banks do) is not fraud. The fact that we can identify instances in which Banks will breach their contract with the depositors does not make the initial contract an act of fraud.

    If you or I take out a personal loan and then later it turns out I can’t repay the debt I am not guilty of fraud. It would only be fraud if it was always my intent to honour the contract.

    The notion that fractional reserve banking is fraud stems from the idea that depositors believe that their deposit is held in a vault. Whilst some people might suffer from this false notion the vast majority of the population understand that when you lend your money to a bank, the bank will then lend the money to other people. And anybody with the slightest amount of corporate accounting knowledge can look at the balance sheet of the bank and observe that this reality is not concealed.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  48. graemebird Says:

    “It is very questionable. Plenty of financial institutions have failed and the government has not bailed them out.”

    Name one bank.

    “The RBA is notionally independent and it’s brief is to combat inflation not bail out failed banks.”

    Institutionally they are servants to the banking system. The way they go about things shows this. They would merely retire debt to stimulate demand were this not the case. Instead they tend to do things in such a way as to give the banks a cut at our expense.

    “If one of the major banks became insolvent then the correct response would be to allow them to go into administration. Their loan book would get sold off and the depositors would get a portion of their investment back. If the depositors got 100% back then the shareholders would get what was left (probably not much).”

    Right. Thats what would be done. But the sun will rise in a purple haze to the West of Perth before the ever happens. Notice how thick banks are on the ground. And nominally speaking they have all these competitors but there are all making money hand over fist.

    “The notion that fractional reserve banking is fraud stems from the idea that depositors believe that their deposit is held in a vault.”

    Terge you are simply failing to lock things in. We have been over this a number of times.

    THERE IS NO NOTION THAT FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS FRAUD UNDER THE CURRENT SOCIALIST SYSTEM.

    Clearly it is NOT fraud under the current socialist system. It always starts off as fraud and its inevitable that it does so. The idea is to go back to that point where things historically always go wrong and lock in super-anti-fraud vigilance.

    Its fraud in 2006 its socialism.

    It starts always when banking starts up as fraud.

    Now you’ve just got to be able to lock stuff in. And not try and lose sight of whats going on here.

    I can take your argument seriously when you’ve managed this feat. For indeed it seems a great feat t be able to lock that basic notion in and then not forget it by the following Wednesday.

    Now this is important. And its important that we get it right. We cannot have a functioning independent free enterprise monetary system that outcompetes all others if we cannot plug this hole.

    It is perfectly reasonable to set up a financial system where fractional reserve IS FRAUD and is considered to be so under natural law.

    This is both a feasible and a worthy thing to do. And we ought get about doing it.

  49. graemebird Says:

    “The RBA is notionally independent and it’s brief is to combat inflation not bail out failed banks.”

    Well thats the giveaway right there.

    The RBA CREATES inflation and does not combat it. So its pretty clear who they work for.

  50. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    My general statements about fractional reserve banking not being fraud are not dependent on the orthodoxy of our current political system. You are repeating this assertion again and again but you are not presenting any case for it.

  51. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    In terms of bank failure my understanding is that the last one in Australia that involved depositors losing money was in 1931 when the Primary Producers Bank failed. In the end depositors got most of their money back. However since federation Australian taxpayers have never had to foot the bill for a bank failure (including the example cited).

    Since federation we have had several different monetary policies, however for most of that period the currency was essentially fixed to gold (first via pound sterling and latter via the US dollar). Fractional reserve banking has never been illegal in Australia.

  52. terje (say tay-a) Says:

    This discussion has basically continued at Graemes personal blog. The link is:-

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/a-proper-market-for-supply-and-demand-of-loanable-funds/#comment-2966

  53. cspxh bpjeurg Says:

    dilowp wure sequlg asqf aibwrzp vtea ufxzd

  54. graemebird Says:

    What about now Terje?

    Do you NOW accept that bank behaviour is only possible with socialist backing?

    How much more of a subsidy would it take for you to accept it?

  55. Wizo Says:

    gra gra has manged to get himsel banned fron doth the Richard Dawkins and James Randi science forums in under a week!!

    He basically comes on, spouts a load of nonsense (Einsteins is wrong, Time doesn’t exist (No, seriously, that was the title of a thread he started!!)) and when the very educated, science qualified members poiltely point out the glaring errors in his logic, he swears at them and gets banned.

    Someone even started a thread in his honour called “Psychology of a crackpot”.

  56. mabraham Says:

    “And as I am (and was much more in younger years) also annoying, arrogant and rude then perhaps he deserves to be taken seriously.”

    You have noble “paternal” feelings my friend but I wouldn’t take the guy seriously even if I was paid to do so.

    He’s been peddling his nonsense for almost a decade and the evolution of his prose on his blog since 2006 clearly shows he gradually lost his mind. (I don’t think he’s a kid anymore.)

    He is a perfect example of what happens to the “unskilled and unaware of it” crowd if they refuse to learn. (I.e. only by learning does the unskilled realize to what extent he was unskilled http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf.)

    Sincerely

    Murray

    P.S: He claims to be a Libertarian but I would rather categorize him as simply selfish.

  57. carbon 14 Says:

    This Graeme Bird guy is a complete lunatic.

  58. graemebird Says:

    Its you that is the lunatic idiot. Where do you disagree with me? In fact this blog shows that I was right all along. This is a blog demonstrating that I was right years ago. Whereas you stupid clowns still aren’t across these issues.

    “Einsteins is wrong, Time doesn’t exist”

    Special relativity is in fact wrong, and Time is a derived concept. I won those arguments you dumb twat. I proved I was right in all cases. The others did not have a comeback beyond conspiring to get me blocked.

    But here is the thread that got me blocked for good over at Dawkins:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/the-post-too-confronting-for-the-richard-dawkins-blog/

  59. Fom Toss Says:

    “Special relativity is in fact wrong, and Time is a derived concept. I won those arguments you dumb twat.”

    Graeme you wouldn’t know anything about special relativity. All you do is assert your pseudoscience with zero knowledge of real science.
    You live in your own little fantasy universe.
    You’re just a sad little fuckwit that has no understanding of anything approaching reality.

  60. graemebird Says:

    Yes I do understand the theory. Its a bad theory. Not as bad as the big bang but still very very bad.

    But special relativity cultists are far worse than bangers in one respect. Bangers don’t assume that you disagree with the theory simply because you don’t understand it. Thats a particularly stupid assumption. And you are a particularly moronic cunt.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: