Warning: ob_start(): non-static method sem_google_analytics::track_links() should not be called statically in /home/c4chaos/c4chaos.com/wp-content/plugins/sem-google-analytics/sem-google-analytics.php on line 159

Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock: TED Ideas Not Worth Spreading

TED just got itself into hot water again. I’ve been following the latest TED fiasco on the “censorship” of Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock’s TEDx talks. (Sorry Chris Anderson and TED Staff, what TED did was *censorship* no matter how you spin it.)

For those who want to know the details that led to this TED brouhaha, a very meticulous guy named Kent Bye put together an excellent timeline of the events on the comments section of the TED Blog. Here’s an excerpt and the closing questions he included in his comment:

*** March 14, 2013 ***
Hancock posts three specific refutations of alleged claims in the comment section stating that “I would like TED to identify where exactly in my talk these alleged ‘many inaccuracies’ occur.”

This request went unanswered for most of the day until Anderson posted later in the day that he was going to “reach out and see if any of our advisors is able to go into more depth in answering your specific questions.”

QUESTIONS FOR TED STAFF:
* Who are the members on TED’s Science Board?
* Why weren’t Sheldrake or Hancock informed and provided an opportunity to respond to these allegations before having an anonymous Science Board frame their presentation?
* If you weren’t intending on censoring the videos, then why didn’t you tell TEDxWhitechapel that the videos would live on in a special section of the site, and thereby clearly communicate that to Hancock & Sheldrake this plan? Why did you instead tell TEDxWhitechapel, “Graham Hancock’s talks from TEDxWhiteChapel should be removed from the TEDx YouTube channel and any other distribution platform currently hosting the videos” and to “delete the videos from YouTube and inform Sheldrake and Hancock that the videos have been removed”? Can you possibly see how this might be interpreted by Hancock and his fans as censorship?
* Why did you not provide specific quotes from Hancock’s talk, which has lead to what Hancock and others claim is a mischaracterization of what he was saying?
* Why wasn’t Hancock’s video provided the same public review process as Sheldrake’s video?

But the gist of it, from my perspective, is that a couple of atheist/scientist bloggers (Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers) were instrumental in getting the Sheldrake and Hancock TEDx talks pulled out from the official TEDx channel. In fact, Jerry Coyne was so pleased that he even gloated on his blog. (Yay, a victory for “real science,” whatever that means.)

However, this is not the first time TED and TEDx pulled off a video of controversial talks. This also happened to Lynne McTaggart’s 2010 TEDx talk in Brussels and Nick Hanauer’s talk on “income inequality” which was just too political for TED. So TED’s censorship applies to fringe science views as well as too politically-charged views. So much for the slogan “ideas worth spreading”. TED’s slogan should now be “Status Quo Ideas Worth Spreading.” But I digress.

Anyway, it turns out that TED messed with the wrong intellectuals this time around. Sheldrake and Hancock are not taking this lying down. They are fighting this in the arena of public discussion. Graham Hancock has challenged TED Curator Chris Anderson and the TED Staff to substantiate their “damaging and defamatory allegations” or “withdraw them and apologize… prominently and publicly.” See Graham Hancock’s Open letter to Chris Anderson, Curator TED Conferences. Here’s an excerpt:

(5) TED says of my “War on Consciousness” presentation: “… it’s no surprise his work has often been characterized as pseudo-archeology.”

Of what possible relevance is this remark? Many different people have characterised my work in many different ways but at issue here is not what people have said about my work over the years but the actual content of this specific TEDx presentation.

So there are the damaging and defamatory allegations TED has made against me in its website, and here again is my request that you either substantiate these allegations forthwith, or withdraw them and apologize to me prominently and publicly, allowing no further time to elapse to worsen the harm and damage you have already done.
Signed Graham Hancock, 15 March 2013 at 09:50 GMT

As of this writing, Rupert Sheldrake has yet to officially respond to TED. But it looks like Sheldrake is just warming up. Thanks to my Facebook friend Terry Allen (who started a “Boycott TED support Graham Hancock, Rupert Sheldrake” group on Facebook) for sharing this email from Sheldrake.

Dear Terry
Many thanks for your support and kind words.

I have written a response to Ted’s accusations by their “Scientific Board” and sent it to TED asking them to post it under the Board’s statement. They have neither done so nor even acknowledged my email, sent yesterday, and re-sent today. So I plan to publish my letter to them online if they do not respond soon. I will also publish my response in blog form. You would be welcome to post these on your page.

Best wishes
Rupert

In addition, most people who have posted on the TED Blog: Open Discussion expressed overwhelming support for Hancock and Sheldrake and called out TED’s censorship. I have also posted a few comments on the blog to express my disappointment with TED’s censorship. But what particularly irked me was the smug and backhanded response by Chris Anderson to Hancock’s tempered and professional line of questioning. So here’s what I posted on the comment section:

Chris Anderson,

your backhanded and condescending response to Graham Hancock is unacceptable. please respond directly to his questions.

as of this writing I still haven’t seen a response from Chris Anderson or the TED staff or the TED Science advisory board to Graham Hancock’s very straightforward questions. please stop insulting our intelligence. this space was provided to have an open discussion and we’re all watching. you started it TED.

Graham Hancock,

please invite Mr. Anderson to your next ayahuasca journey and have Mr. Anderson describe his experience in an 18-minute TED talk.

Are you up to the challenge Mr. Anderson?

I’ll continue to follow the developments on this latest TED fiasco on my EPIC THREAD hang out on Facebook.

When all is said and done, I’d like to thank TED, PZ Myers, and Jerry Coyne for making Sheldrake and Hancock’s TEDx talks more popular than ever. Congratulations on a job well-done, science boys! Well played!

But I’m still looking forward to see TED’s response to Graham Hancock’s straightforward questions and Rupert Sheldrake’s inquiry. Surely TED doesn’t want to be viewed by the public as an organization who can easily be bullied by a few opinionated atheists.

The ball is in your court TED. We are watching.

In the meantime, below are the TEDx Talks videos that got pulled from the official TEDx channel. Watch them and judge for yourself whether they deserve to be censored.

Rupert Sheldrake @ TEDx Whitechapel – Science Delusion

 

Graham Hancock @ TEDx Whitechapel – War on Consciousness

 

P.S. Thanks to the latest TED “censorship” of Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock this video of Eddie Huang’s epic exposé of TED is circulating again. Hey TED, blame yourself!

 

P.P.S. John Ratcliff is spot on. I very much agree with his analysis.

“The TED Conference is more like a motivational seminar than a scientific conference. Scientific conferences are peer reviewed and people are not accepted to speak at a conference unless their material has met a very strict criteria. In contrast, the key requirement to be a speaker at TED is that you are a dynamic speaker and can present new ideas in an intriguing way. Both speakers in this case did an excellent job in that regard; and their talks were extremely popular online before they were suppressed.

As both I and many others have pointed out there have been, over the years, many speakers at TED conferences who expressed very speculative ideas that would be deemed ‘non-scientific’ by the thought police over at CSI (committee for skeptical inquiry; formally CSICOP).

So, why were these other talks not all suppressed as well? Probably because those previous presenters didn’t directly attack the establishment paradigm of material science. This whole thing has been reduced to the kind of behavior you would expect of spoiled children who got their feelings hurt. Or, maybe the better analogy, the behavior of religious fanatics who got angry when someone attacked their dogma.”

 

UPDATE (03/18/2013):  I’m glad to see TED doing a “fresh take”  after being called out by Sheldrake, Hancock, and the people who passionately disagreed with TED’s knee-jerk decision and disrespectful framing of the issues. TED has now published Sheldrake and Hancock’s response on the TED Blog and crossed the original text. It is worth reading, especially Sheldrake’s powerful yet tempered academic rebuttal. In the end, TED effectively recanted their original unfounded allegations and basically admitted they committed a mistake. Props to TED for doing the right and decent thing.

However, I agree with Hancock. This is still unacceptable. At the very least the videos should be restored to their original TEDx channel. Here’s Hancock’s followup response on his FB page:

“TED continue to refuse to restore the talks to the original platform on which they appeared — the TEDx Youtube channel — where my talk had been viewed by more than 132,000 people and where Rupert’s talk had been viewed by more than 35,000 people before TED took them down. I regard it as unfortunate in the extreme that all the conversations and comments that appeared there have been hidden along with the talks, and that those original links have been broken, and I will continue to press for the restitution of our talks to the TEDx Youtube channel separate from and in addition to the presence they now have on the TED blog pages.”

Btw, the passionate voices on the TED blog are not necessarily Graham Hancock’s “army of passionate supporters” as TED continue to portray us. A lot of us (yes, present company included) who were vocal on the TED Blog simply saw through the sloppy censorship due to complaints by a couple of militant atheists (Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers). I now look forward to Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers’s response. I bet they’ll be sourgraping, big time.

Donate Bitcoins
[Thanks! I could use some coffee :) ]

Comments (20)

  1. c4chaos wrote::

    just read TED’s policy on good/bad science. most of the guidelines is very sound and should be followed accordingly by organizers. but this part made me chuckle though “Marks of bad science: Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth”. no wonder TED is so status quo. as i said before, its slogan should be changed to “Status Quo Ideas Worth Spreading”.

    ~ http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science

    Saturday, March 16, 2013 at 11:47 pm #
  2. c4chaos wrote::

    again, John W. Ratcliff makes excellent points:

    “If the people at TED are concerned about how invited guests at TEDx conference are hurting their brand, and clearly they are, then they need to start revoking some franchise rights immediately.

    My recommendation to the people at TED is that you either (A) assume executive control over the peer review and vetting process for invited speakers at TEDx conferences or (B) disband and dissociate from them.

    However, and I want to be very clear on this point, what you don’t do is slander, attack, and suppress invited guests who gave up their own personal time to give a presentation at one of these events.

    It is incredibly rude and hurts your ‘brand’ far worse than simply letting these popular talks by very famous people stay online in their original form.”

    ~ http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2013/03/tedx-red-headed-step-child-of-chris.html

    Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 9:00 am #
  3. c4chaos wrote::

    for what it’s worth, the comment thread on TED Blog has generated thoughtful discussions from thoughtful people. below is one example. 

     it’s unfortunate that people, in this case, atheists scientists (like Coyne) doesn’t or can’t make a distinction between science as a method and philosophy of science. no surprise there since a lot of mainstream scientists eschew philosophy altogether.

    this also applies to Hancock’s talk, vis a vis, philosophy of mind.

    —-

    by Rome Viharo:

    the problem I have with your assessment of the situation is that you are assuming what Sheldrake is discussing is ‘pseudo science’.

    It isn’t. It’s philosophy of science.

    Now sheldrake might have a theory or two from his previous career as a scientist (morphic resonance for example) that some scientists might claim is pseudo science, but that is very very debatable and one that sheldrake has been having for over 30 years.

    For example, String Theory in physics some scientists believe is also pseudo science because it is not falsifiable, but this is a debate amongst scienctists. Sheldrake is a scientist, and TED should not take sides in the politics of scientists debating various theories or hypothesis as long as they do so within the realms of science. Sheldrake does provide tests and experimentation around his ideas, just like any other scientist does.

    ‘Pseudo science’ is often used as a derogatory term and often used as an opinion or personal interpretation of another scientists fair efforts.

    On top of all of this, Sheldrake is not giving a talk about his theories, he just mentions them in context to a philosophical approach to science, of which pseudo science plays no role whatsoever

    ~ http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/comment-page-12/#comment-33704

    Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 9:40 am #
  4. Stanislav Gagovski wrote::

    “To link the unconscious mind with the domain of quantum mechanics is revolutionary because it implies that just as the localist classical material world is founded on non-local, interconnected quantum mechanics, so the localist classical mind (the conscious Ego) is founded on the non-local, interconnected unconscious.
    The unconscious is to consciousness what quantum mechanics is to classical mechanics. It’s foundational and yet obeys a different paradigm of non-locality and interconnectedness rather than locality and separation.
    The message of Jung’s collective unconscious, and of quantum mechanics, is that we are all fundamentally connected in the unconscious domain. We are all influenced by archetypal, unconscious forces that affect everything in the universe, not just human or animal minds.
    Rupert Sheldrake’s extremely controversial hypothesis of morphic resonance can be analyzed easily within the context of the collective unconscious. In essence, Sheldrake said that if creatures learned a trick on one side of the world, equivalent creatures on the other side of the world would then pick up the trick much more quickly. (For example, if rats, after many iterations, learn a way through a complex maze, rats a continent away will learn the same solution after far fewer iterations). Sheldrake’s ideas are absurd in terms of conventional science, but make perfect sense if they operate through a dimensionless, interconnected, non-local collective unconscious.”

    Hockney, Mike (2012-12-20). Hyperreason (The God Series) (Kindle Locations 4344-4357). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.

    Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 9:49 am #
  5. c4chaos wrote::

    here’s a very interesting take on the recent TED debacle. it highlights the psi wars between skeptics and pro psi crowd.

    “In an act of breathtaking stupidity, TED chose to quarantine both Rupert Sheldrake’s video and another one by Graham Hancock using some trumped up charges of scientific inaccuracies for both of them.  (Link here.) No one was fooled and the resulting outrage has now topped 700 comments as I’m writing this.  They are destroying their brand with this nonsense.  The Daily Grail has done a fine job of examining the skeptical hatchet job, so I won’t be addressing that.   (link here.) Instead, I am going to look at what led them to this nuclear sized public relations disaster and how this is a litmus test of the psi wars in general.   I believe that this issue gets to the heart of differences in how skeptics and the pro psi crowd think.”

    ~ http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/ted-swings-the-banhammer-it-rebounds-into-their-face/

    Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 10:48 am #
  6. c4chaos wrote::

    To TED Staff, TED Scientific Advisory Board, and TED Curator Chris Anderson,

    It has come to my attention that a certain computer scientist and UFOlogist named Jacques Vallee was allowed to present on the stage at TEDx Brussels. Here’s the link to his talk:

    http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2011/speakers/jacques_vallee.html

    Vallee talked about T.O.E (Theory of Everything). But he is a computer scientist, not a physicist. Surely, he is way out of his league in talking about such topic. This is red flag #1.

    Red flag #2: The guy is a UFOlogist. I mean, hello! That’s the study of WOO WOO stuff like UFOs! Oh, the horror! According to Wikipedia, UFOlogy is pseudoscience.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology#Status_as_a_field

    What would Michael Shermer say?! And if Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers discover this TEDx talk then they might get offended, cry like babies, and complain to the TED Science Board. So I’ll be proactive in requesting that Jacques Vallee’s talk be pulled off from the TEDx site to protect the TED brand.

    I appreciate your swift action. You’re welcome.

    Just watching out for the TED brand,

    ~C

    ~ http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/comment-page-14/#comment-33956

    Monday, March 18, 2013 at 12:15 am #
  7. c4chaos wrote::

    finally, TED has posted Rupert Sheldrake response. read below:

    ~ http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake

    ———-

    Response to the TED Scientific Board’s Statement

    Rupert Sheldrake
    March 18, 2013

    I would like to respond to TED’s claims that my TEDx talk “crossed the line into pseudoscience”, contains ”serious factual errors” and makes “many misleading statements.”

    This discussion is taking place because the militant atheist bloggers Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers denounced me, and attacked TED for giving my talk a platform. I was invited to give my talk as part of a TEDx event in Whitechapel, London, called “Challenging Existing Paradigms.” That’s where the problem lies: my talk explicitly challenges the materialist belief system. It summarized some of the main themes of my recent book Science Set Free (in the UK called The Science Delusion). Unfortunately, the TED administrators have publically aligned themselves with the old paradigm of materialism, which has dominated science since the late nineteenth century.

    TED say they removed my talk from their website on the advice of their Scientific Board, who also condemned Graham Hancock’s talk. Hancock and I are now facing anonymous accusations made by a body on whose authority TED relies, on whose advice they act, and behind whom they shelter, but whose names they have not revealed.

    TED’s anonymous Scientific Board made three specific accusations:

    Accusation 1:
    “he suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it’s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness, and there’s much research and literature exploring the idea.”

    I characterized the materialist dogma as follows: “Matter is unconscious: the whole universe is made up of unconscious matter. There’s no consciousness in stars in galaxies, in planets, in animals, in plants and there ought not to be any in us either, if this theory’s true. So a lot of the philosophy of mind over the last 100 years has been trying to prove that we are not really conscious at all.” Certainly some biologists, including myself, accept that animals are conscious. In August, 2012, a group of scientists came out with an endorsement of animal consciousness in “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness”. AsDiscovery News reported, “While it might not sound like much for scientists to declare that many nonhuman animals possess conscious states, it’s the open acknowledgement that’s the big news here.” (http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.htm)

    But materialist philosophers and scientists are still in the majority, and they argue that consciousness does nothing – it is either an illusion or an ”epiphenomenon” of brain activity. It might as well not exist in animals – or even in humans. That is why in the philosophy of mind, the very existence of consciousness is often called “the hard problem”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

    Accusation 2:
    “He also argues that scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants, using as his primary example the dogmatic assumption that a constant must be constant and uses the speed of light as example.… Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a careful rebuttal of this point.”

    TED’s Scientific Board refers to a Scientific American article that makes my point very clearly: “Physicists routinely assume that quantities such as the speed of light are constant.”

    In my talk I said that the published values of the speed of light dropped by about 20 km/sec between 1928 and 1945. Carroll’s “careful rebuttal” consisted of a table copied from Wikipedia showing the speed of light at different dates, with a gap between 1926 and 1950, omitting the very period I referred to. His other reference (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/speedoflight.html) does indeed give two values for the speed of light in this period, in 1928 and 1932-35, and sure enough, they were 20 and 24km/sec lower than the previous value, and 14 and 18 km/sec lower than the value from 1947 onwards.

    1926: 299,798
    1928: 299,778
    1932-5: 299,774
    1947: 299,792

    In my talk I suggest how a re-examination of existing data could resolve whether large continuing variations in the Universal Gravitational Constant, G, are merely errors, as usually assumed, or whether they show correlations between different labs that might have important scientific implications hitherto ignored. Jerry Coyne and TED’s Scientific Board regard this as an exercise in pseudoscience. I think their attitude reveals a remarkable lack of curiosity.

    Accusation 3:
    “Sheldrake claims to have “evidence” of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior. The research has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, despite attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work.”

    I said, “There is in fact good evidence that new compounds get easier to crystallize all around the world.” For example, turanose, a kind of sugar, was considered to be a liquid for decades, until it first crystallized in the 1920s. Thereafter it formed crystals everyehere. (Woodard and McCrone Journal of Applied Crystallography (1975). 8, 342). The American chemist C. P. Saylor, remarked it was as though “the seeds of crystallization, as dust, were carried upon the winds from end to end of the earth” (quoted by Woodard and McCrone).

    The research on rat behavior I referred to was carried out at Harvard and the Universities of Melbourne and Edinburgh and was published in peer-reviewed journals, including the British Journal of Psychologyand the Journal of Experimental Biology. For a fuller account and detailed references see Chapter 11 of my book Morphic Resonance (in the US) / A New Science of Life (in the UK). The relevant passage is online here: http://sciencesetfree.tumblr.com/

    The TED Scientific Board refers to ”attempts by other scientists eager to replicate the work” on morphic resonance. I would be happy to work with these eager scientists if the Scientific Board can reveal who they are.

    This is a good opportunity to correct an oversimplification in my talk. In relation to the dogma that mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works, I said, “that’s why governments only fund mechanistic medicine and ignore complementary and alternative therapies.” This is true of most governments, but the US is a notable exception. The US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine receives about $130 million a year, about 0.4% of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) total annual budget of $31 billion.

    Obviously I could not spell out all the details of my arguments in an 18-minute talk, but TED’s claims that it contains “serious factual errors,” “many misleading statements” and that it crosses the line into “pseudoscience” are defamatory and false.

    ~ http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

    Monday, March 18, 2013 at 2:22 pm #
  8. c4chaos wrote::

    glad to see TED doing a “fresh take”. btw, the passionate voices on the TED blog are not necessarily Graham Hancock’s “army of passionate supporters.” a lot of us who we’re vocal on the TED Blog simply saw through the sloppy censorship due to complaints by a couple of militant atheists.

    “When Sheldrake and Hancock’s talks were flagged, the majority of the board recommended we remove them from circulation, pointing out questionable suggestions and arguments in both talks. But there was a counter view that removing talks that had already been posted would lead to accusations of censorship. It’s also the case that both speakers explicitly take on mainstream scientific opinion. This gives them a stronger reason to be listened to than those who simply use scientific sounding language to make nonsensical claims. So we decided we would not remove the talks from the web altogether, but simply transfer them to our own site where they could be framed in a way which included the critique of our board, but still allow for an open conversation about them.
    What happened next was unfortunate. We wrote to the TEDx organizer indicating our intention and asking her to take the talks off Youtube so that we could repost. She informed the speakers of what was coming, but somehow the part about the talks staying online got lost in translation. Graham Hancock put out an immediate alert that he was about to be “censored”, his army of passionate supporters deluged us with outraged messages, and we then felt compelled to accelerate our blog post and used language that in retrospect was clumsy. We suggested that we were flagging the talks because of “factual errors” but some of the specific examples we gave were less than convincing. Instead of the thoughtful conversation we had hoped for, we stirred up angry responses from the speakers and their supporters.

    We would like to try again.”

    ~ http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/

    Monday, March 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm #
  9. c4chaos wrote::

    The Daily Grail’s coverage of the TED fiasco has been superb. but fortunately for TED, this issue hasn’t yet reach mainstream proportions. so far only a few bloggers and alternative news sites have covered this story. i think that this is New York Times material (or maybe Techcrunch, Mashable, and Gawker). heck, even The Joe Rogan Experience Podcast is late to jump on this.

    it’ll be interesting to see if popular blog sites and mainstream media pick up on this story. again, i’d like to thank Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers for making such a big deal out of this. now Sheldrake and Hancock TEDx talks will be more popular than ever :)

    “An update to last week’s post about TED’s removal (from YouTube) of talks by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake: after a weekend of being slammed for both the removal of the videos, and the manner in which they handled it (ie. making up complaints about the talks), TED have edited the page to include a response from Rupert Sheldrake, and retracted the comments originally made (by striking through the text, rather than simply deleting the text). They have also issued a follow-up response to the controversy, which will be clarified further in the next day.”

    “RE “specific examples we gave were less than convincing”. Actually they were fictions. Don’t couch them in terms as if they weren’t the most convincing reasons you could have used. They. Were. Fiction. This is a serious matter. It also gets to the heart of the action – were these fictions the reasons given by the ‘scientific board’, or were they the unfortunate actions of whomever put up the blog (which I find hard to believe, that they would be given the freedom to make up reasons and attribute them to the science advisory board). Whomever is to blame, are they being disciplined for defaming Hancock and Sheldrake? Why is there no apology in this post for such an unprofessional course of action – I hope the subsequent post includes one.”

    ~ http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2013/3/TED-Reframe-Arguments-Against-Talks-Hancock-and-Sheldrake

    Monday, March 18, 2013 at 10:20 pm #
  10. My brother suggested I might like this website. He was entirely
    right. This post actually made my day. You can not imagine just how much time I had spent for this information!
    Thanks!

    Monday, February 24, 2014 at 5:17 pm #
  11. Jovita wrote::

    This is a very good tip particularly too those new to the
    blogosphere. Short but very precise info… Appreciate your
    sharing this one. A must redad post!

    Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 3:37 pm #
  12. Wliciacift wrote::

    Ces Fours personnalisés sont une bonne représentation de sa tenue de cette vidéo, avec une base rouge pour laisser place à des accents noirs et de léopard d’or. Nike Tn,Has playing Schmidt changed the way you dress?Well I’ve got some nice clothing. Air jordan Pas cher,La seule touche de couleur vient de courtoisie d’un tacheté bleu Université contour autour des bulles d’air sur la semelle.
    Les âllures un peu imposântes de cette bottine sign&eâcute;e Un Mâtin d’Et&eâcute; sâurâ âpporter une bonne dose de cârâct&egrâve;re âux looks des citâdines mode. On âime sâ semelle crânt&eâcute;e et sâ belle lâni&egrâve;re &âgrâve; boucle qui enserre notre mollet.
    Pâs de commentâire il n’y â pâs longtemps que les âi.
    : auteur:nikeshjkttn

    Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 5:10 am #
  13. I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your site.
    It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more
    enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out
    a developer to create your theme? Superb work!

    Saturday, June 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm #
  14. xkodspco wrote::

    Le Extra Butter x Saucony Space Race Pack se compose de trois modèles, la Saucony Grid 9000 «ACES», la Saucony Shadow Master «Space Snack» et d’un troisième pas encore présenté.
    Les Nike Kobe 8 Playoffs ont un dessus en Engineered Mesh dégradé rose-violet contrasté par un swoosh argenté et des accents de noir.
    Chaussure Nike Requin Tn
    Après le pack Two Faced, voici un aper莽u du prochain pack de Nike Roshe Run, le 鈥淐ity鈥?Pack constitué de quatre coloris représentant les villes de New York, Paris, Tokyo et Londres.
    Pour le moment, la date de release exacte n’a pas encore été dévoilée.
    Les sneakers ont une base en cuir combiné à du mesh et du cuir verni noirs avec une semelle intermédiaire blanche et un amorti Hexalite.
    Nike Tn Nouvelle Collection
    On sait maintenant qu’il s’agit d’une collaboration entre New Balance et United Arrows et que la paire est disponible sur le e-shop de la marque.
    Plus d’images dans la suite! Posté dans: nike cradle rock low.

    Sunday, July 13, 2014 at 8:14 pm #
  15. Now I am ready to do my breakfast, once having my breakfast coming again to read
    additional news.

    Friday, August 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm #
  16. I think the admin of this web site is truly working hard in favor
    of his website, as here every information is quality based material.

    Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 9:31 pm #
  17. Fine way of telling, and nice article to take information on the topic of my presentation subject,
    which i am going to convey in school.

    Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 1:36 am #
  18. AntonioSuef wrote::

    Chez Marcel Cerdan, le sportswear vintage se décline ainsi aujourd’hui en de très nombreux modèles, une collection féminine ayant même vu le jour récemment.
    Aujourd’hui cet ami est en couple et extrêmement heureux.
    Ne restez plus derrière un écran en pensant que les choses finiront par changer d’elles-mêmes, comme si un esprit bienveillant avait pitié de vous.
    Bref, voilà un bon moyen de devenir propriétaire d?une montre de luxe, à moindre co?t !.

    Costume Homme Pas Cher

    >>> Retrouvez notre sélection de Tee-Shirt pour l’été 2009 <<<.
    Zoom sur 5 garde-temps présentés dans le cadre de cette 24ème édition.
    Mais attention, chez Mugler, les voyous sont tirés à quatre épingles, du gangster à la rock star en passant par l’aventurier pas de faux plis !L’homme d’aujourd’hui, urban chic !La directrice artistique de chez Mugler, Rosemary Rodriguez, s’inspire largement de l’homme moderne et mixe les styles et les looks.
    Il faut dire que dans Drive, le comédien a tout fait pour se mettre la gent féminine dans la poche.

    Costume Homme Pas Cher
    .

    Monday, September 15, 2014 at 3:03 am #
  19. Robertrok wrote::

    l’atmosphère idyllique de grèves, que le printemps montrer votre c?té rétro élégant!
    avec des chaussures à talons hauts, la tête de poisson chaussures imperméables,
    Créée en 1982, la 420 de New Balance est une réédition rétro du modèle authentique. Typée très running, c’est une chaussure technique con?ue pour répondre aux besoins des sportifs aussi bien en terme de performance que de confort.
    une jolie tong agrémentée de perles qui évoque l’océan et le soleil !
    Tempérament et très haut de gamme avec un pointu en bois

    air trainer

    Pour ce modèle, New Rock a visiblement misé beaucoup sur le compensé de la semelle qui atteint des niveaux impressionnants. Cette fois c’est s?r, vous ne vous laisserez pas marcher sur les pieds et vous prendrez de la hauteur avec style en un clin d’oeil !
    Très satisfait de l’article, le seul bémol est que les chaussures se salissent très vite mais je pense que ce n’est pas à prendre en considération. Sinon j’ai un bon toucher de balle et les tirs sont énormes avec.
    Citadine mais d’inspiration outdoor, cette chaussure ajourée de chez Timberland va en conquérir plus d’un. Respirante et résistante, elle dévoile une coupe casual qui cache une semelle anatomique. Avec elle, l’été sera 100% confort !
    La marque spécialiste de la chaussure féminine imagine
    appuyée par un trio de lanières scratch.

    nike air trainer 1

    Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 5:01 am #
  20. Robertrok wrote::

    Vous ne trouverez pas plus confortable que ces bottes doublées de fourrure. Ornées d’un bouton latéral.
    Le coloris taupe est plut?t marron… finitions médiocres .
    Semelle intermédiaire pour un amorti accru, doublure mesh et EVA gage de respirabilité : cette basket piquée aux basketeurs assure c?té confort et c?té style. Un modèle Supra idéal pour la pratique du skate.
    Gros coup de c?ur pour la Rebound de chez Puma !
    Les atouts séduction de cette jolie botte griffée Salamander sont indéniablement ses lignes simplissimes et féminines et son look racé.

    Nike Air Huarache

    Souplesse et ligne intemporelle : tels sont les points forts du mocassin revu et corrigé par Swamp. Un modèle fortement inspiré du modèle originel, enrichi par des surpiq?res contrastantes et un duo de matières.
    L’incontournable de l’été, c’est la chaussure compensée,
    avec des chaussures à talons hauts, la tête de poisson chaussures imperméables,
    En talons hauts, environ cm
    cette saison dans une version premium en cuir.

    Nike Air Huarache

    Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 5:34 am #

Trackbacks/Pingbacks (2)

  1. [...] [...]

  2. [...] the TED story broke I was neither the first, nor the best reporter of it.  That honor goes to C4Chaos.  I didn’t try to compete with him; experience had shown me that it’s not my thing.  [...]