|
|
Post by michele5611 on May 16, 2013 7:59:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on May 16, 2013 9:36:44 GMT -5
be sure to read my comments
1) the selection of participants is highly suspect. Pet store employees and shelter receptionists are "experts"????
2) it assumes that DNA is accurate.
It's a badly designed study designed to prove something we already know... that most people can't identify breeds... in the service of a propaganda message that dogs are "just" individuals.
And additionally, to paraphrase Katie Bray: how can the SAME people asserting that no one can identify a dog by breed, ALSO tout a study that claims "pit bulls are the most popular breed in America"? (you can see Kim W's FB page for the mindboggling combo of illogic)
|
|
|
|
Post by kcdogblog on May 16, 2013 10:33:45 GMT -5
I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire study and not just the NCRC/AFF reports on it.
The study itself notes that DNA is not 100% accurate.
It also has a very small sampling of pet store employees (and because people could choose more than 1 field, and most did, likely VERY few that ONLY work at pet stores) and was designed to acknowledge that the people who are responsible for assigning breed identification of unknown breeds in this country are not doing so accurately, and thus, all of these bogus reports that are used to perpetuate breed bias are so wrought with mis-identification that they are useless for policy-making.
And Kim didn't do the study, nor does she work for AFF any more, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on May 16, 2013 10:53:10 GMT -5
The main thing for me regarding the DNA tests and all the subsequent studies and discussions is that there is no APBT in the database. I know it has been used to keep a dog in question alive and prove it is not a pit bull and that is great ….but what are you proving if there is no shot of it coming up as a pit bull to begin with?
What happens if and when the APBT marker can be identified….or is it never going to be possible….by design or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilys on May 16, 2013 11:34:02 GMT -5
I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire study and not just the NCRC/AFF reports on it. The study itself notes that DNA is not 100% accurate. It also has a very small sampling of pet store employees (and because people could choose more than 1 field, and most did, likely VERY few that ONLY work at pet stores) and was designed to acknowledge that the people who are responsible for assigning breed identification of unknown breeds in this country are not doing so accurately, and thus, all of these bogus reports that are used to perpetuate breed bias are so wrought with mis-identification that they are useless for policy-making. And Kim didn't do the study, nor does she work for AFF any more, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this post. Kim expresses the leading edge of the "logic" AFF espouses. And BTW, I don't "hate" her.... It's not personal with me, though it may be for her. And certainly seems to be for the AFF staffer who posted personal attacks (since deleted) on my page. Brent: think this through. If -- as its proponents admit-- DNA breed tests are not accurate, and LESS accurate for mixed breeds, how can you defend it as being better than "visual" identification for mixed breed dogs? That simply makes no sense. There is simply not a shred of evidence for that conclusion. I don't know what you mean by your assertion that DNA is "better" now. Show me the INDEPENDENT studies. We really don't need a study that shows pet store employees don't know how to identify dogs. We already know that ACO's mislabel dogs, often specifically for the purpose of killing them. The purpose of THIS study is to make a claim about DNA testing (i.e that the visual id is wrong because it disagrees with the DNA results). A claim completely unsupported. This study will NOT help argue against the killing of dogs because of appearance. The whole fight against BSL has been about that. What THS study will do is lend credence to the "we can't identify a dog/pit bulls are the most common dog even if we can't identify dogs/people identify problem dogs as pit bulls/any dog is a pit bull if someone says it is/any dog that someone identifies as a pit bull IS a pit bull and if it's a problem dog, we can kill it". That's the nexus I see and why I argue so strongly against the AFF propaganda. Not to mention the "well we can't tell if that dog that looks like a beagle is a beagle and it might not bark because breed isn't predictive, so let's not bother to educate staff or potential adopters about breed traits and if the dog is returned because it barks, oh well" thing, which is the absolutely logical conclusion of the AFF propaganda. YOU may not follow the AFF propaganda, but I do.. and I can put 2+2 together. This study does not exist in isolation. And if the authors of the study REALLY wanted to test knowledge of breeds instead of support their pre-determined conclusion, why didn't they include a larger sample of people who actually DO know about breeds instead of random self selected petstore employees and shelter receptionists (along with the ACOs etc). |
|
|
|
Post by kcdogblog on May 16, 2013 12:41:17 GMT -5
The main thing for me regarding the DNA tests and all the subsequent studies and discussions is that there is no APBT in the database. I know it has been used to keep a dog in question alive and prove it is not a pit bull and that is great ….but what are you proving if there is no shot of it coming up as a pit bull to begin with? What happens if and when the APBT marker can be identified….or is it never going to be possible….by design or otherwise. The initial school of thought on this was that because of the extreme closeness of the APBT and the AST that any APBT that was tested would show up as at least prominently AST. Because of the diversity within APBT lines, if I had to guess (and it's just an educated guess at this point), that specific breed markers for the APBT are extremely hard to pin down (this was also true of Jack Russell Terriers and Rat Terriers, who tend to be closer to their working roots than many other breeds and bred for function more so than looks). As for what happens when/if the marker is identified? I don't know. We'll probably eventually get to find out. But I don't fear the result. I'm always in favor of more knowledge vs less knowledge. It's the ignorance that is leading to dogs being killed now. |
|
|
|
Post by kcdogblog on May 16, 2013 12:56:42 GMT -5
I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire study and not just the NCRC/AFF reports on it. The study itself notes that DNA is not 100% accurate. It also has a very small sampling of pet store employees (and because people could choose more than 1 field, and most did, likely VERY few that ONLY work at pet stores) and was designed to acknowledge that the people who are responsible for assigning breed identification of unknown breeds in this country are not doing so accurately, and thus, all of these bogus reports that are used to perpetuate breed bias are so wrought with mis-identification that they are useless for policy-making. And Kim didn't do the study, nor does she work for AFF any more, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this post. Kim expresses the leading edge of the "logic" AFF espouses. And BTW, I don't "hate" her.... It's not personal with me, though it may be for her. And certainly seems to be for the AFF staffer who posted personal attacks (since deleted) on my page. Brent: think this through. If -- as its proponents admit-- DNA breed tests are not accurate, and LESS accurate for mixed breeds, how can you defend it as being better than "visual" identification for mixed breed dogs? That simply makes no sense. There is simply not a shred of evidence for that conclusion. I don't know what you mean by your assertion that DNA is "better" now. Show me the INDEPENDENT studies. We really don't need a study that shows pet store employees don't know how to identify dogs. We already know that ACO's mislabel dogs, often specifically for the purpose of killing them. The purpose of THIS study is to make a claim about DNA testing (i.e that the visual id is wrong because it disagrees with the DNA results). A claim completely unsupported. This study will NOT help argue against the killing of dogs because of appearance. The whole fight against BSL has been about that. What THS study will do is lend credence to the "we can't identify a dog/pit bulls are the most common dog even if we can't identify dogs/people identify problem dogs as pit bulls/any dog is a pit bull if someone says it is/any dog that someone identifies as a pit bull IS a pit bull and if it's a problem dog, we can kill it". That's the nexus I see and why I argue so strongly against the AFF propaganda. Not to mention the "well we can't tell if that dog that looks like a beagle is a beagle and it might not bark because breed isn't predictive, so let's not bother to educate staff or potential adopters about breed traits and if the dog is returned because it barks, oh well" thing, which is the absolutely logical conclusion of the AFF propaganda. YOU may not follow the AFF propaganda, but I do.. and I can put 2+2 together. This study does not exist in isolation. And if the authors of the study REALLY wanted to test knowledge of breeds instead of support their pre-determined conclusion, why didn't they include a larger sample of people who actually DO know about breeds instead of random self selected petstore employees and shelter receptionists (along with the ACOs etc). For the record, I never said you hated Kim... I have defended the wisdom panel test as being more accurate for mixed breed dogs than visual ID. The DNA test is claiming to be at least 90% accurate on Gen 1 mixes (and the evidence I've seen, although anecdotal, gives me little reason to doubt that). I don't think the vast majority of people who work with animals will do that well. I have said, repeatedly, that at this point the tests break down after Gen 2 -- but SO DOES VISUAL ID. So at least the test is more accurate for close mixes - and like everything else, mediocre beyond that. That said, DNA has the POTENTIAL to be very effective with deeper breed mixes -- visual ID has little change of getting better at deep mixes. And I disagree with your notion that this won't help in the argument against killing dogs based on appearance. I wish I had a $10 bill for ever ACO I've heard say they were accurate on their breed ID. I'd be pretty wealthy. Even if you IGNORE everything to do with the DNA part of this study, the reality is, ACOs/shelter workers, etc, many of whom claim to be good at this, completely disagree on breed identification. With so much subjectivity, the majority are wrong by default, regardless of what the dog actually is, because they aren't in agreement with themselves. And while you and I have known this for YEARS, there really was no proof of that, because it was your word and my word against the ACO -- who gets paid to be right. I follow along with all of the information that is out there quite well. I think I have a good idea of the progression of the study. But here's the thing, at some point, one way or the other, the SCIENCE will win. Meanwhile, stop harping on the 'pet store employee' thing -- there were 15 other positions that were more common than "pet store employee' -- which made up a TINY part of the sample, and were likely to, based on the classifications, to have had another title on the list as well. Harping on that just makes it look like you didn't bother to read the study. |
|
|
|
Post by emilys on May 16, 2013 20:55:52 GMT -5
yes Brent: I have read the study .. and I find your continued suggestions that I haven't to be both childish and insulting. It's simply the truth that the study included as "experts" pet store employees and receptionists, with NO proof of their "expertise". On that basis it concludes that no one can identify the components of a mixed breed dog. It's not my problem if you don't see how UNscientific that is, or recognize my sarcasm/ hyperbole as a rhetorical device. And it's still you and the defenders of DNA who have failed to provide links to any independent studies or even to construct an identification test that challenges actual experts, rather than self-identified ones. Like maybe.. the kind you describe using in your own shelter? You might try that test...
See: the DNA test is only reasonably accurate for first gen mixes, as you admit. Care to explain how anyone knows WHICH gen a shelter dog is?. Obviously, they can't... except of course for those they know are first gen... which they would know if they knew which breeds came together... and then of course they wouldn't need to test them, would they? : So by the company's own logic, the DNA test cannot possible be accurate other than for KNOWN first gen mixes and then only somewhat..
Not only is the DNA part of the study not needed, it's dangerous. Not just because it's so unproven.
The people enforcing BSL don't care about breed, and they don't have to care about DNA either.. the "with the appearance of " clause gives them all the out they need. The fight against BSL has always been "it's not the breed; it's the dog". A properly constructed study that showed ACO's can't identify dogs might be useful, though why it's more useful than the 100s of datapoints from the REAL world, I can't quite get my mind around.
But the study is not what you want it to be in being a useful tool to combat BSL or death sentences. No court is going to accept an argument that "this dog is not a pit bull even though Mr LocalACO says it is; here's this study that proves ACO's can't identify dogs" ... because Mr LocalACO is going to testify about all his extensive expertise and training. And the prosecutor is going to ask, "How accurate is the DNA test?" and the defense is going to mutter "90%" and then prosecutor is going to smirk as the judge throws out the DNA evidence. You'd still have to do what is done today: dispute THAT particular identification by THAT particular ACO.
This study is about DNA... and DNA MAKES IT ABOUT THE BREED
Let's imagine your future scenario where "science" demonstrates that DNA breed tests ARE accurate. Every shorthaired blocky dog seized on suspicion of being a pit bull has to be tested. The dogs that don't show a majority of APBT get to live. Those that DO show it .... get dead.
So rather than continuing to focus on the traditional argument.. which HAS been working except in those few retrograde locations like Denver and Miami/Dade (where BSL REALLY has nothing to do with dogs)... advocates of using DNA are actually supporting a NEW argument that will facilitate the killing of dogs... yes, throwing the APBT under the bus. Which is indeed part of the whole AFF "gee is it a "pit bull type dog" a "pit bull" or a "pit bull" dog but no we're not talking about the APBT" thing.
That's sarcasm and hypberbole, btw.
That's the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcdogblog on May 16, 2013 21:37:20 GMT -5
I'm going to confess, I quit reading your comment after the first three sentences.
To clarify. The study never referred to any of the participants as "experts" in breed identification, however fairly noted that more than 75% of the panel had their decisions on breed ID used in statistical gathering.
Also, you have subjectively proposed your own conclusion that they say "no one can identify the components of a mixed breed dog".
Here is their conclusion in full.
"The disparities between visual and DNA identification of the breed composition of dogs and the low agreement among people who identify dogs raise questions concerning the accuracy of databases which supply demographic data on dog breeds, as well as the justification and ability to implement laws and private restrictions pertaining to dogs based on breed composition."
These two inaccuracies go along with your previous assertion that the "study assumes DNA is accurate" -- even though the study specifically notes it is not.
It's because of your continued misrepresentation of what the study actually says that causes me question whether you read it. Because you're reading FAR more into it than is ever said.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 17, 2013 7:40:51 GMT -5
I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire study and not just the NCRC/AFF reports on it. The study itself notes that DNA is not 100% accurate. It also has a very small sampling of pet store employees (and because people could choose more than 1 field, and most did, likely VERY few that ONLY work at pet stores) and was designed to acknowledge that the people who are responsible for assigning breed identification of unknown breeds in this country are not doing so accurately, and thus, all of these bogus reports that are used to perpetuate breed bias are so wrought with mis-identification that they are useless for policy-making. And Kim didn't do the study, nor does she work for AFF any more, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this post. I didn't read the blog or the study yet, I just wanted to note that APBT people and all those fighting against BSL have ALWAYS pushed the idea that breed identification is shifty and not accurate, just based on LOOKING at the dog. And that so many visual reports specifically related to attacks are misleading in terms of breed involved. Considering breed mis-ID as well as the fact that MIXES or ANY dog that simply looks like a Pit Bull is lumped into bite reports, these reports/stats are hence NOT accurate. What we didn't do is make the above claims while insisting NOT one person EVER could ID a Pit Bull and Pit Bulls don't exist and NO one could make ANY reliable claims about ANY dog unless it was a papered purebred. This is the disconnect and the reason I am associating less and less with current "breed" advocates. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 17, 2013 8:12:16 GMT -5
As for what happens when/if the marker is identified? I don't know. We'll probably eventually get to find out. But I don't fear the result. I'm always in favor of more knowledge vs less knowledge. It's the ignorance that is leading to dogs being killed now. I just don't understand how that can't worry you. The new mode of fighting BSL has been, "Let's prove everything is not a Pit Bull and DNA results are accurate!" What happens when DNA tests start ID'ing APBTs? They already ID (supposedly) AmStaffs and SBTs. That makes me nervous enough as it is. Honest question, I would like to be convinced I have nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by kcdogblog on May 17, 2013 8:22:29 GMT -5
I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire study and not just the NCRC/AFF reports on it. The study itself notes that DNA is not 100% accurate. It also has a very small sampling of pet store employees (and because people could choose more than 1 field, and most did, likely VERY few that ONLY work at pet stores) and was designed to acknowledge that the people who are responsible for assigning breed identification of unknown breeds in this country are not doing so accurately, and thus, all of these bogus reports that are used to perpetuate breed bias are so wrought with mis-identification that they are useless for policy-making. And Kim didn't do the study, nor does she work for AFF any more, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this post. I didn't read the blog or the study yet, I just wanted to note that APBT people and all those fighting against BSL have ALWAYS pushed the idea that breed identification is shifty and not accurate, just based on LOOKING at the dog. And that so many visual reports specifically related to attacks are misleading in terms of breed involved. Considering breed mis-ID as well as the fact that MIXES or ANY dog that simply looks like a Pit Bull is lumped into bite reports, these reports/stats are hence NOT accurate. What we didn't do is make the above claims while insisting NOT one person EVER could ID a Pit Bull and Pit Bulls don't exist and NO one could make ANY reliable claims about ANY dog unless it was a papered purebred. This is the disconnect and the reason I am associating less and less with current "breed" advocates. Mary, this study, if taken at face value (without reading too much into it) actually helps PROVE what we've been saying all along. The problem has always been that we can say that the reports are accurate because most ACOs/Shelter staff can't identify breeds of dogs, but then a chief ACO can say "But I can identify them" and the conversation is over, they win (at least from our experience around here". This study helps give scientific fact behind our statements. It doesn't say anything that you say in the last paragraph (although, yes, I've seen that statement made out there) . Although, I confess that while I think saying a lot of people can't identify purebred dogs is silly, I'm still skeptical that many people at all would be actually GOOD at determining the background of unknown mixes based on visual ID. |
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on May 17, 2013 8:25:10 GMT -5
I didn't read the blog or the study yet, I just wanted to note that APBT people and all those fighting against BSL have ALWAYS pushed the idea that breed identification is shifty and not accurate, just based on LOOKING at the dog. And that so many visual reports specifically related to attacks are misleading in terms of breed involved. Considering breed mis-ID as well as the fact that MIXES or ANY dog that simply looks like a Pit Bull is lumped into bite reports, these reports/stats are hence NOT accurate. What we didn't do is make the above claims while insisting NOT one person EVER could ID a Pit Bull and Pit Bulls don't exist and NO one could make ANY reliable claims about ANY dog unless it was a papered purebred. This is the disconnect and the reason I am associating less and less with current "breed" advocates. Mary, this study, if taken at face value (without reading too much into it) actually helps PROVE what we've been saying all along. The problem has always been that we can say that the reports are accurate because most ACOs/Shelter staff can't identify breeds of dogs, but then a chief ACO can say "But I can identify them" and the conversation is over, they win (at least from our experience around here". This study helps give scientific fact behind our statements. It doesn't say anything that you say in the last paragraph (although, yes, I've seen that statement made out there) . Although, I confess that while I think saying a lot of people can't identify purebred dogs is silly, I'm still skeptical that many people at all would be actually GOOD at determining the background of unknown mixes based on visual ID. Thanks Brent, I'm off to read! (And sorry, didn't mean to imply I thought the study was saying what I said in the last paragraph - just stuff I know some advocates are saying, esp. those who are really "into" the whole DNA thing.) |
|
|
|
Post by kcdogblog on May 17, 2013 8:25:55 GMT -5
As for what happens when/if the marker is identified? I don't know. We'll probably eventually get to find out. But I don't fear the result. I'm always in favor of more knowledge vs less knowledge. It's the ignorance that is leading to dogs being killed now. I just don't understand how that can't worry you. The new mode of fighting BSL has been, "Let's prove everything is not a Pit Bull and DNA results are accurate!" What happens when DNA tests start ID'ing APBTs? They already ID (supposedly) AmStaffs and SBTs. That makes me nervous enough as it is. Honest question, I would like to be convinced I have nothing to worry about. I guess I don't worry about it. Because yes, it COULD be used to determine breeds and then, used as a way to exterminate dogs. However, I think it will continue to show just how poor breed ID is and that most of the statistical information is bunk. Unless we really think that all of these wildly attacking dogs out there really are pit bulls, I think the positive will far outweigh the negative potential. I may be wrong. It's happened before. But I really don't think "truth" hurts us...I feel like we're already on the side of the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 10:43:55 GMT -5
be sure to read my comments 1) the selection of participants is highly suspect. Pet store employees and shelter receptionists are "experts"???? 2) it assumes that DNA is accurate. It's a badly designed study designed to prove something we already know... that most people can't identify breeds... in the service of a propaganda message that dogs are "just" individuals. And additionally, to paraphrase Katie Bray: how can the SAME people asserting that no one can identify a dog by breed, ALSO tout a study that claims "pit bulls are the most popular breed in America"? (you can see Kim W's FB page for the mindboggling combo of illogic) Can you please stop misquoting me? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 10:46:31 GMT -5
I would highly recommend taking the time to read the entire study and not just the NCRC/AFF reports on it. The study itself notes that DNA is not 100% accurate. It also has a very small sampling of pet store employees (and because people could choose more than 1 field, and most did, likely VERY few that ONLY work at pet stores) and was designed to acknowledge that the people who are responsible for assigning breed identification of unknown breeds in this country are not doing so accurately, and thus, all of these bogus reports that are used to perpetuate breed bias are so wrought with mis-identification that they are useless for policy-making. And Kim didn't do the study, nor does she work for AFF any more, so I'm not sure what she has to do with this post. Kim expresses the leading edge of the "logic" AFF espouses. And BTW, I don't "hate" her.... It's not personal with me, though it may be for her. And certainly seems to be for the AFF staffer who posted personal attacks (since deleted) on my page. Brent: think this through. If -- as its proponents admit-- DNA breed tests are not accurate, and LESS accurate for mixed breeds, how can you defend it as being better than "visual" identification for mixed breed dogs? That simply makes no sense. There is simply not a shred of evidence for that conclusion. I don't know what you mean by your assertion that DNA is "better" now. Show me the INDEPENDENT studies. We really don't need a study that shows pet store employees don't know how to identify dogs. We already know that ACO's mislabel dogs, often specifically for the purpose of killing them. The purpose of THIS study is to make a claim about DNA testing (i.e that the visual id is wrong because it disagrees with the DNA results). A claim completely unsupported. This study will NOT help argue against the killing of dogs because of appearance. The whole fight against BSL has been about that. What THS study will do is lend credence to the "we can't identify a dog/pit bulls are the most common dog even if we can't identify dogs/people identify problem dogs as pit bulls/any dog is a pit bull if someone says it is/any dog that someone identifies as a pit bull IS a pit bull and if it's a problem dog, we can kill it". That's the nexus I see and why I argue so strongly against the AFF propaganda. Not to mention the "well we can't tell if that dog that looks like a beagle is a beagle and it might not bark because breed isn't predictive, so let's not bother to educate staff or potential adopters about breed traits and if the dog is returned because it barks, oh well" thing, which is the absolutely logical conclusion of the AFF propaganda. YOU may not follow the AFF propaganda, but I do.. and I can put 2+2 together. This study does not exist in isolation. And if the authors of the study REALLY wanted to test knowledge of breeds instead of support their pre-determined conclusion, why didn't they include a larger sample of people who actually DO know about breeds instead of random self selected petstore employees and shelter receptionists (along with the ACOs etc). Again, please stop misquoting me. This is a waste of your time and mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 10:55:52 GMT -5
I think the study would have been stronger if they left out DNA tests altogether. The DNA tests were not necessary to show that there's little agreement on what to call mixed-breed dogs and dogs of unknown origins.
There is another study, similar to this, that has been done (and will hopefully be published soon) that also shows how little agreement there is among observers. That study used ~6,000 participants and found that for each dog, there was an average of 58 different guesses on the predominant breed. I'm not sure if they plan to include the DNA test results or not, but they're certainly not the focus. The takeaway point is: of those 58 different guesses, only 2 of them can be correct (because it's possible the dog could be an F1 cross of two purebred parents), and the rest have to be wrong. No DNA tests needed to support that.
Like Brent said, the new Voith study is a good thing for dogs! It's saying that the "experts" (the Tom Skeldons of the world) who claim to know what a pit bull is just by looking at it are not supported by facts. This has nothing to do with the ability of breed fanciers -- like people on this forum -- to visually ID an APBT. Nothing at all! And I'm not sure why Emily Seiger keeps insisting I said that "no one can identify a pit bull." Of course some people can, assuming the dog is actually an APBT.
But what's more important now -- to convince the general public that Emily Seiger is capable of doing this, or to convince the general public and legislators that assholes like Tom Skeldon are not?
I'm gonna go with the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by catstina on May 17, 2013 11:43:22 GMT -5
So why do we have to deny that there is such a breed as the Pit Bull in order to do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on May 17, 2013 14:15:43 GMT -5
So why do we have to deny that there is such a breed as the Pit Bull in order to do that? No one that I know of is denying that the American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed. |
|
|
|
Post by michele5611 on May 17, 2013 14:29:07 GMT -5
The fact that so many people say pit bull is not a breed is part of the problem and the confusion. Pit Bull to me has and will always be APBT.
|
|
Sept 23, 2015 11:44:53 GMT -5
Sept 23, 2015 11:44:53 GMT -5
I look forward to learning much here
Nov 11, 2015 17:39:08 GMT -5
I look forward to learning much here
Nov 11, 2015 17:39:08 GMT -5
May 11, 2016 11:43:25 GMT -5
May 11, 2016 11:43:25 GMT -5