1. Comment #37073 by willerror on May 3, 2007 at 10:35 am

Michael Behe? Michael Behe? That exposed little fraud, marginalized even by his own university? What is Time magazine thinking?

Oh, that's right--it's not.

And who is that blonde woman? Is it Cameron Diaz? Cate Blanchett? Who?

Other Comments by willerror

2. Comment #37074 by BaronOchs on May 3, 2007 at 10:36 am

The edge of Evolution . .."buy this with The Dawkins Delusion for just £16:57"

yippee lol!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

3. Comment #37075 by Rtambree on May 3, 2007 at 10:37 am

Where does this list rank on "The Top 100 Meaningless Lists"? Vote now...

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #37076 by Fedler on May 3, 2007 at 10:42 am

Very well done, Professor! Anything to get the word out is great by me!

(I can't help but think that must have had to really chap the behind of Michael Behe to write that)

Other Comments by Fedler

5. Comment #37079 by hightrekker on May 3, 2007 at 10:47 am

Michael Behe?--
That's where they have the advantage-- they (Michael Behe) have no ethical or moral foundation to get in the way. While a reality based person, making decisions on science, observation, and developed analysis, would hold their nose while reading this, the superstition based person has both hands free.
Shame on you Time! Have you no ethics?

Other Comments by hightrekker

6. Comment #37081 by BaronOchs on May 3, 2007 at 10:49 am

Well there's a good dissection of Behe's last book here:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

His arguments were basically around "irreducible complexity". One of the best examples of an irreducibly complexity was reckoned to be the propellor-like bacterial flagella. This was very well refuted in a paper by Kenneth Miller which Dawkins discusses in The Ancestor's Tale.

Also info on that here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1_1.html

So has Michael Behe got some new arguments I wonder?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

7. Comment #37083 by MikeCaptnKidd on May 3, 2007 at 10:58 am

Michael Behe? Might as well have David Duke write Martin Luther King's obituary:

Of Martin Luther King's many speeches, none caused as much controversy or gained as much publicity as "I Have A Dream". The central idea—popular among negros and deeply unsettling among members of the master race like myself—is that white supremacy is an illusion, a simple artifact of history, no more or less meaningful than today's weather.

It is a measure of the artful way King, an exceptionally articulate negro, tells a tale and the inspiration he brings to his fantasy, that even those of us who profoundly disagree with what he has to say can tip our hats to the way whips up crowds.

King had a normal American negro youth, but discovered his gift for public speaking and believed he'd found a meaning for his life. I believe his speech follows much less from logic than from his dreams, and yet I admire his eloquence. Concerning the big questions, the Bible advises us to be hot or cold but not lukewarm. Whatever the merit of his ideas, Martin Luther King is not lukewarm.


Any other ideas for spectacularly bad choices for writing bios?

Other Comments by MikeCaptnKidd

8. Comment #37085 by perkyjay on May 3, 2007 at 11:01 am

My word - aren't we all bitchy today ? Did somebody urinate on our Cornflakes. What Michael Behe said was not actually that bad, and he is, after all, a proponent of ID. Come on guys - how about a bit of that charity, which is not only restricted to christians.

Other Comments by perkyjay

9. Comment #37086 by Ian on May 3, 2007 at 11:04 am

Hate the cartoon, I thought these illustrations were supposed to reveal something about the character 'hidden' in a photo. I guess it was cheap.

Choosing Behe was typical journalistic cynicism, but at least we'll never see him in the running for any meaningful award.

Other Comments by Ian

10. Comment #37089 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 am

Heh. Behe reveals that ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in technical language when he says: "The central idea—popular among readers and deeply unsettling among proponents of intelligent design like myself—is that religion is a so-called virus of the mind, a simple artifact of cultural evolution, no more or less meaningful than eye color or height." And then he mentions the Bible in his last paragraph!

So much for all of that "well we don't know who the designer is" bs.

Other Comments by roach

11. Comment #37091 by William on May 3, 2007 at 11:12 am

What Michael Behe said was not actually that bad

No, but it was unctuous and disingenuous. Clearly, Behe is using Dawkins' selection as an opportunity to further the deception that there is an actual scholarly debate going on, presenting himself as a friendly but dissenting peer, a reasonable proponent of ID who is generous enough to praise his opponents. And the very fact that Time chose HIM to write the Dawkins piece is outrageous. I'm glad I canceled my subscription to this worthless magazine.

Other Comments by William

12. Comment #37093 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 11:16 am

I didn't find the guy's stuff pompous. I thought he was at least polite and I don't mind the word "debate" at all. In fact, he should be invited to debate Richard--freely, not like the O'Reilly show. Maybe Behe would learn something, the fence-sitters probably would and Dawkins could just keep polishing up his debating skills which are already awesome.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

13. Comment #37095 by Aaron SF on May 3, 2007 at 11:21 am

Congrats RD.

Granted Time did put Bush on the cover once. :P

So I'm much more proud of the RDF than the Time 100 list.

Speaking of wich, can we no-longer use "RDF" for Richard Dawkins Fan now that it's the RD Foundation?

Other Comments by Aaron SF

14. Comment #37096 by waxwings on May 3, 2007 at 11:22 am

Behe was so thoroughly pwned byt the ACLU lawyers and the judge in Dover, PA, that he has zero remaining credibility, IMHO. Look for his upcoming book to flop and flop hard.

Other Comments by waxwings

15. Comment #37101 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 11:35 am

I guess I'm torn. The piece wasn't all that bad, but it was a strange choice, nonetheless. I'm hoping they didn't similarly choose Rudy Giuliani to write Barak Obama's bio, or Jennifer Aniston to cover Angelina Jolie.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

16. Comment #37106 by scottishgeologist on May 3, 2007 at 11:44 am

Behe and other who go on about ID need to remember, that even if ID were possible, then it doesnt automatically imply the existence of God. It is entirely possible that an extremely advanced race of aliens could have visited the earth at several times in the past and influenced events. Possible, but on the basis of the evidence, unlikely. Highly unlikely.

This was after all, Erich von Danikens idea (until he got pwned by the BBC Horizons program in 1977 and shown up to be a fraud - I can clearly remember watching that prog on TV at the time)

Maybe "God" is a bug-eyed alien from Zeta Reticuli? Nah... advanced aliens couldnt possibly be so bloodthirsty and downright evil.

So when Behe et al talk about the Bible and belief and all that stuff, they have already loaded the dice.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

17. Comment #37109 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I can understand the reasons why they chose Behe to write the bio. It's a gesture of good will, civility, respect, etc. But the problem is that doing so implies that ID/creationism is on equal ground with evolution. Or at the very least suggests that ID is a worthy critique of evolution. The ID theory is superfluous or wrong. Neither option is respectable.

Other Comments by roach

18. Comment #37111 by ft77 on May 3, 2007 at 12:01 pm

--- 'roach' said

'Heh. Behe reveals that ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in technical language when he says: "The central idea—popular among readers and deeply unsettling among proponents of intelligent design like myself—is that religion is a so-called virus of the mind, a simple artifact of cultural evolution, no more or less meaningful than eye color or height." And then he mentions the Bible in his last paragraph!

So much for all of that "well we don't know who the designer is" bs.'

---

You really hit the nail on the head.

Other Comments by ft77

19. Comment #37116 by ft77 on May 3, 2007 at 12:06 pm

It's not a gesture of goodwill, it's just cynical, lazy, journalistic relativism.

Other Comments by ft77

20. Comment #37118 by Steven Mading on May 3, 2007 at 12:22 pm

It is not a gesture of good will to say that Dawkins is merely arguing his premises in The God Delusion, as Behe did here. To say that is to ignore the existence of any of Dawkins reasoned arguments in the book.

It's a repeat of the classic put-the-burden-of-proof-on-the-wrong-party tactic theists use frequently. They invented the idea that an entity called God needs to exist, so the burden of proof is entirely theirs. It is not a "premise" to start from the default hypothesis that a proposed entity shouldn't be believed to exist until there's a reason to believe it.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

21. Comment #37119 by Duff on May 3, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Behe was selected to provoke and sell copies of the mag. These editors are like selfish genes, they'll do anything to propagate and sell the product.

Other Comments by Duff

22. Comment #37120 by sir_russ on May 3, 2007 at 12:33 pm

waxwings said, "Look for his upcoming book to flop and flop hard," but it may not turn out that way at all.

A friend of mine who is a book broker tells me that groups like the National Association of Evangelicals - Ted Haggard was its last president - often buy a large number of a specific book (50,000 to 500,000 copies) specifically to manipulate the sales numbers to get it onto bestseller lists, when they want to be able to suggest to their adherents that the brisk book sales are a sign from god. Sometimes they never take possession of them, but instead, move them directly to the used book market.

Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" sold around 200,000 copies, and I'll bet this one does at least as well.

As an interesting aside, a longtime friend of mine who is a fundamentalist Christian, bought two copies of "Darwin's Black Box" on the urging of his minister. According to my friend, most of his fellow church members bought one or more. A couple of weeks ago he asked me if I wanted both of them since he had never read them and had no plans to ever do so. Then, earlier this week, at a "bargain" book store, I came across a pile of about 500 pristine "Darwin's Black Box's." It would be at least interesting to know how many of the reported 200,000 sales numbers were actually read.

Other Comments by sir_russ

23. Comment #37123 by commonhumanity on May 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

CONGRATULATIONS, Richard!
I voted for you.

Yes, Dawkins found a "Pearl of Great Price" in Darwin. Yes, we have all found a pearl of great price in Dawkins.
Time Magazine, please, let's not cast these two great gems before the swine. [I did NOT say "Behe." You have to use your own imagination.]
Your Kentucky friend,
Dot

Other Comments by commonhumanity

24. Comment #37128 by roach on May 3, 2007 at 12:44 pm

ft77 and Steven Mading:

I think you know what I mean. I also don't think it's a gesture of good will. I only meant to suggest that the people at TIME think it is. And if anyone criticized the selection of Behe for this piece they could easily hide behind the mask of civility. I already said why I think having Behe write the bio is disingenuous and misinformative. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. But thanks for pointing out the shortcomings of my words.

Other Comments by roach

25. Comment #37132 by BaronOchs on May 3, 2007 at 12:50 pm

waxwings said, "Look for his upcoming book to flop and flop hard," but it may not turn out that way at all.

Indeed, he might as well have called it "Book criticising evolution by someone with real scientific credentials" and it would have a market.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

26. Comment #37138 by atkinson on May 3, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Behe live or Behe dead,
I still won't choose ID instead
( Jack's giant ? )

Other Comments by atkinson

27. Comment #37141 by Corylus on May 3, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Pedants Corner: So for Michael Behe eye colour is not meaningful... fine, but at least the magazine's illustrator could have got it right...

Other Comments by Corylus

28. Comment #37142 by d4m14n on May 3, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Maybe they're just warming up their readership for when they drop The Big D in at number 1 on the Time 100 list.

We all know that whatever the results of the online poll, their editors are going to largely ignore it and go with someone who is actually influential, someone a little controversial, someone exactly like Richard Dawkins. We can live in hope.

Other Comments by d4m14n

29. Comment #37146 by smoothington on May 3, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Hello!
The blonde woman on the cover, by the way, is Cate Blanchett.

I'm an atheist through and through, but in my eyes, she is heaven!

Other Comments by smoothington

30. Comment #37147 by Greg Laden on May 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm

If you have a problem with Behe being asked to write this (and you damn well should!) then consider writing a letter to Time!!!

It's easy to find the contact link on their site.

Other Comments by Greg Laden

31. Comment #37148 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Here's the problem:

Behe seeks to elevate himself by reveling in the reflection of praising RD for contributing to their "debate."

Nauseating. Watch out for his next "book."

Other Comments by sane1

32. Comment #37152 by k1mgy on May 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm

>>Concerning the big questions, the Bible advises >>us to be hot or cold but not lukewarm. Whatever >>the merit of his ideas, Richard Dawkins is not
>>lukewarm.

Oh, well then, I feel instructed. Thanks so much for that. All from (pastor) Michael Behe, who has sadly thrown any scientific training he may possess to the wind - irrefutably and totally discredited in the Dover, PA "Intelligent Design" case. I love what the Judge had to say, "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.".

There are other gems from the case and enough to bury Behe and the rest of his delusional ilk. I'm not sure how much stock I'd place on being awarded a place on the list, considering the "quality" of the presenter. Perhaps it's the magazine's way of saying "and oh, by the way, F you".


Now, a few questions:

What does your "bible" say about blowing up other nations on no provocation and on manufactured evidence?

What does it say about harassing and marginalizing other human beings because of their genetically-driven or personal-choice-based sexual preference?

What does it say about a government that would illegally kidnap and torture innocent people?

What does it say about illegal spying, about graft, theft, and misuse of office?

What does it say about subverting justice for the want of politics?

In every area, the current US mal-administration, allegedly driven by "the bible", has violated not only the clear dictates therein, but the basic stuff that it doesn't take a preacher to figure out.

Behe, ends his introduction to Professor Dawkins with a nice piece of instruction from "the bible" (as if we all know which of the hundreds of them he means) so we can be properly oriented on how Dr. Dawkins should be viewed.

To that I'd say: get your "christian" compatriots to clean up their act, clean up your own, and then you may have some credibility to pontificate.

In the end, perhaps I should have just skipped all the words and said what I really felt: "Behe, blow it out your ass".

Other Comments by k1mgy

33. Comment #37162 by relevo on May 3, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Does anyone here know if TIME gave any reason for why they decided to choose someone anathema to Dawkins in writing his summary? Did they do this with every person in the list?

Other Comments by relevo

34. Comment #37174 by chionactis on May 3, 2007 at 3:05 pm

I guess my comments pretty much echo what many of you have already said. I am obviously glad that Dawkins got the exposure. He is a light in this willful darkness, and I am glad he is so influential.

If a neurologist was one of the most influential people, would Time Magazine consider choosing someone claiming to have psychic powers (like the unethical vulture John Edward) to write an article about the neurologist? That would be laughable, right?

If they were making the choice based on the amount of publicity it would give them, on the amount of product it would move, I know now that they absolutely would. With the unfortunate choice of Behe, Time has given us a better understanding of what motivates them.

Other Comments by chionactis

35. Comment #37196 by maton100 on May 3, 2007 at 4:18 pm

The bible advises us not to be lukewarm? Huh? Talk about a tepid statement of irreducible complexity!

Other Comments by maton100

36. Comment #37211 by valleyshrew on May 3, 2007 at 5:33 pm

k1mgy, have you read the old testament? Have a look at The Dark Bible webpage. You ask what it says about blowing up other nations, well, how about - "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." That they violate parts of the bible only shows that the bible contradicts itself and you can't do everything it says.

You can't expect it to say something about all those things, they're too specific, spying was hardly a big issue back then. People have justification from the bible for anything, there are so many different moral views presented in the different gospels that you choose which to follow by using your own morals. Bush isn't very smart, but I'm sure he knows a lot about the bible and what it says and feels it justifies his actions.

Other Comments by valleyshrew

37. Comment #37214 by Bonzai on May 3, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Why do you have to attack Behe personally? His review of Dawkins is respectful while acknowledging their differences. I don't think he volunteered to write the article, Times probably asked him to. We can be civil with each other even though we may be violently disagreeing with each other's ideas.

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #37223 by Janus on May 3, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Because he's a hack and a sell-out? And because he's using the standard creationist tactic of making it look like there's any question as to whether he and his ilk are dead wrong.

Other Comments by Janus

39. Comment #37227 by Russell Blackford on May 3, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Given that Behe actually does believe the things he believes (it's easy to forget this), I think we should assume good faith - to use a Wikipedia expression. From his perspective, he is simply being gracious, not doing anything unfair or underhanded. I agree with Bonzai that there's no need to attack him personally.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

40. Comment #37242 by un_ko on May 3, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Actually, TIME has edited out some chunk out of the original text - according to the pro-intelligent-design blog site, Uncommon Descent. Here is what Behe wrote originally, copied from the post:

Of his nine books, none caused as much controversy — or sold as well — as last year's The God Delusion. Yet the leading light of the recent atheist publishing surge, Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, has always been a man driven by the big questions. Born in Kenya in 1941 of British parents, he received a mild Anglican upbringing. But at the age of sixteen Dawkins discovered Charles Darwin's theory, and thought he'd found a pearl of great price.

His academic career as an evolutionary biologist got off to a fast start in the 1970's with his first book, The Selfish Gene, which argued a then-unfashionable notion: like many politicians in Congress, individual genes of a genome are looking out just for their own good. So if somehow an unconscious gene mutated to be copied more effectively, it would outcompete its fellow DNA fragments. The fundamental idea of this "gene-centered" view of evolution had been proposed by other researchers. But, using his remarkable gift of scientific exposition, Dawkins painted the abstruse concept so clearly, and drew out the logic of its problematic premises so brightly, that it quickly became evolutionary orthodoxy.

Dawkins pushed the old idea in new directions. He argued that genes shape not only the body of an animal, but also its external environment: the imagined genes that move a beaver to build a dam are working for their own survival no less than the genes that shape the beaver's tail. Even human thoughts were fitted to the Procrustean mold. He coined the word "meme" to denote fragments of ideas, such as cultural fads or music lyrics, that might replicate within brains like genes in a cell. And into the disreputable category of meme he firmly placed religion, calling it a virus of the mind.

With the big questions of life and mind supposedly solved in principle, Dawkins has in the past several decades abandoned research, and turned instead to persuading society of the correctness of his views. It was for Dawkins that computer software billionaire Charles Simonyi endowed the Oxford Chair of the Public Understanding of Science, freeing Dawkins to write newspaper articles, produce films, and travel the world to spread the meme that, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference." A stark message, certainly. But true, thinks Dawkins, and he will not shrink from saying so.

The God Delusion, which deals more with philosophy than science, has been panned as amateurish by academic reviewers. Yet even a Roman Catholic intelligent design proponent like myself, who thinks Dawkins' conclusions follow much less from his data than from his premises, has to admire the man's energy and determination. Concerning those big questions, Someone once advised us to be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm. Whatever the merit of his ideas, Richard Dawkins is not lukewarm.

Now, note that at the time of writing, the title to the Richard Dawkins image on that post is "Obsolete imperialist myth-maker". You can verify this by dragging the mouse and select the whole Behe text on the post - including the Dawkins image - then paste it on to Notepad (or something similar).

Other Comments by un_ko

41. Comment #37274 by William on May 4, 2007 at 12:35 am

I don't think he volunteered to write the article, Times probably asked him to.

Oh, yeah, like he didn't leap at the opportunity to toss off a few back-handed compliments and subtly influence Time readers' perception of Dawkins and his work.

Just read between the lines of the final sentence: "Whatever the merit of his ideas (read: they have none), Richard Dawkins is not lukewarm (read: he's an extremist)."

or:

"at 16 (Dawkins) discovered Charles Darwin (read: he was converted to atheism by that wicked man's book - don't expose your children to the Origin of Species, whatever you do!) and believed he'd found a pearl of great price (read: but he was mistaken)"

From his perspective, he is simply being gracious,

As if Dawkins needed his courtesy. More realistically, Behe is using this as an opportunity to promote himself and his cause. The gracious thing to do would have been to decline Time's offer, and suggest that they get someone less contentious. This is, after all, supposed to be a celebration of Dawkins and his book. Instead, all we're talking about is Michael Behe!

Other Comments by William

42. Comment #37317 by rokort on May 4, 2007 at 4:35 am

From Behe's piece on the pro-intelligent-design blog site: Uncommon Descent, final paragraph (thanks to un_ko):
"The God Delusion, which deals more with philosophy than science, has been panned as amateurish by academic reviewers."

These kind of things always truly p**s me off. For example, this one seems just a freaking lie! Who are these "academics" then?
It's like saying "there are scientists that believe in ID too, you know", or "my grandfather lived to become 90 while smoking 2 packs a day, so who says smoking kills?"

It's posing a "general and accepted" view based on exceptions, something coming close to a false statement. This only to divide of course. Very un-intellectual. But, unfortunately, too many times they get away with this kind of reasoning because the scientific method: reasoning and deduction, (let alone mere facts) are unknown to too many people. Then you get this kind of hollow retorics, something religious folks are well trained experts in....

*sigh*

Other Comments by rokort

43. Comment #37321 by justme on May 4, 2007 at 4:52 am

William: "As if Dawkins needed his courtesy. More realistically, Behe is using this as an opportunity to promote himself and his cause. The gracious thing to do would have been to decline Time's offer, and suggest that they get someone less contentious. This is, after all, supposed to be a celebration of Dawkins and his book. Instead, all we're talking about is Michael Behe!"

The disgust and anger you feel is *EXACTLY* why Time picked Behe. For other people on the list, there were contentious biographers chosen. Time *WANTS* you to get angry and ... talk about Time magazine.

Bottom line: What they are shooting for is the same result you'd get if you choose the bitter ex-spouse to write a character reference for the spouse who won full custody of the kids.

This is Jerry Springer with Classical music playing in the background.

It is better to consider this a cynical advertisement for Time itself and treat them as they deserve; ignore them.

Other Comments by justme

44. Comment #37341 by glittergulch on May 4, 2007 at 6:10 am

Oh Time. *slowly shakes head in shame*

I see Al Gore on there. I assume James Inhofe wrote his entry.

Other Comments by glittergulch

45. Comment #37372 by danceswithanxiety on May 4, 2007 at 8:49 am

Behe grudgingly praises Dawkins for invigorating "the larger debate"? What larger debate would that be?

This is one of those rivalries where one side (Dawkins) doesn't realize he's even in a rivalry. Likewise, a dog is not in a rivalry with the tick that has attached itself.

Well, at least Michael Behe is getting published *somewhere,* even if it is in one of the discount newsweeklies instead of a peer-reviewed science journal.

Go away, Behe. Go waste your life in a church and stop fouling science and public discourse.

Other Comments by danceswithanxiety

46. Comment #37503 by Richard Morgan on May 4, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Interesting bit of hypocrisy here -this article is Behe being......well, lukewarm!

And ID is a way for seething fundamentalists to appear...well, lukewarm.

Check out your Bible (on-line) to see what Jesus intends to do with the "lukewarm".

You don't want to waste your time? OK - here it is: the lukewarm will be spewed out of his mouth.
(Rev. 3:15-16).

So I guess the Westboro Baptist Church and Richard Dawkins are safe from ending up in the divine vomitorium.

In fact, there is only one criterion for usefully judging Behe's article: will it make more people by TGD? If so, Behe can be as delusional as he wants, I'll just thank him warmly, then stand back quickly in order not to get caught up in apocalyptic disgestive tube problems.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

47. Comment #38936 by bluebird on May 9, 2007 at 2:44 pm

We consider Neil DeGrasse Tyson a musketeer; and thought his bio in the top 100 people list was good.

Other Comments by bluebird

48. Comment #38946 by simaloko on May 9, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Michael Behe seems very naive. I read about him on wikipedia. He is a proponent of I.D. because believes there are items at the molecular level that can be explained through natural selection.

Surely he should know that just because we don't know the answer, doesn't mean that God did it, and lets say that God did do it. Which one? Islam, christian, hindu, roman gods, the list is endless.

He seems like a man who once faced the reality that no Gods exist and couldn't face it so decided to turn back and hide behind I.D.

Other Comments by simaloko