A Note on Comments

I’ve used the analogy a bit — which I ripped off of Nate Oman — that corners of the Bloggernacle are sort of like cocktail parties being hosted by various sites. You’re in someone else’s house, enjoying various conversations as you mill around, Diet Coke in hand. You may not know everyone there, maybe you don’t know anyone there. But you’re among friends regardless and you all have a lot in common. Now, it’s pretty common to get into some lively discussions at some of these parties. You may not agree with what everyone says — in fact, some of the best conversations come from a sharing of ideas and challenging each other to improve. This much is clear, though: you’re a guest.

I’ve been doing this blog thing for over a decade. During that time I’ve seen a lot of heated conversations, a lot of people asked to leave and a lot of misunderstandings. I wish I could say things are getting better, but they’re not. Conversations are more polarized, more hurtful and more difficult than ever. People are talking past each other in record numbers, assuming the worst from each other and taking postures that are increasingly ridiculous. This is not a phenomenon unique to BCC. Except where comments are moderated heavily, this is happening all over in the Bloggernacle and is happening throughout American social discussion as well. We are drifting away from Zion.

I recognize that for some, the increasingly polarized discussion is inevitably shaped by the initial posts. It takes two to tango, after all. An outrageous post demands outrageous comments. But this is not true. You’re not required to boldly proclaim your opposition to something you read on the internet. If you disagree but are unable to do so in a cogent, kind, zion-like way, then you are not invited to participate. It’s really that simple. I agree that outrageous posts are an issue but the issue is the author’s and, for purposes of our civil conversation, it must remain that way; it is enough for you to note your disagreement and move on. I recognize that may feel unfair. The conversation game at BCC is rigged! And yet. The internet is a big place – if you want to vent some spleen, you can do so on many other sites (including your own!). But we will try to do better here in terms of conversation.

Let me make a few suggestions. Authors can try to provide some sort of notice to commenters where topics are especially sensitive, in an effort to keep the conversation civil. Authors can also be more involved in their own threads to steer discussion. Particularly with respect to gender issues, I’d like to encourage male participants to practice more restraint. There is a tendency to discuss such ideas as abstract notions, political philosophies perhaps. But these are not hypotheticals for many of our readers (and authors). Please consider this thoughtfully, and if you find yourself posting comment after comment, please take a break. The womenfolk will survive, somehow, without the fullness of our male wisdom. It’s ok! And lastly, recognize that we’ll moderate discussion when we feel it’s necessary. If you get a tap on the shoulder, it’s time to take a step back. Most people around here are pretty good about recognizing the value of taking a break.

Look, I’ve thought about these issues a lot. We’ve considered moderating all comments. We’ve thought about barring men from some conversations entirely. We’ve thought about a three strikes policy. All kinds of various approaches. But the basic solution is extremely obvious: we must treat each other as real people. That’s our comment policy.


  1. Thanks. This speaks to my soul a lot. I have found myself pulling away from conversations because it feels like the male voices are drowning out women’s experiences. Thank you for being clear about your thoughts. They help it feel safer here.

  2. Thanks – you are not the only one pulling away from conversations, and that has weighed really heavily on my mind. It’s a real shame and we can do better.

  3. What would go a long way is if people would stop typing the word “not” in all caps during Internet arguments. I get the desire to emphasize something, but in context it looks like the commenter is insecure and losing control.

  4. Thanks for this. I love the emphasis on the working toward zion together. I know the writing in the bloggernacle has been a means for me to better understand what zion can be, and how to move toward it, even when there are disagreements. To treat each other as real people is the most needed reminder if we are to get anywhere at all.

  5. Angela C says:

    Wait, I thought corporations were real people. Now commenters are also real people? Sheesh. I need to make a list.

  6. Aussie Mormon says:

    For all I know Angela, this entire site is just a figment of my imagination. Not to be confused with the pigment of my imagination, which would probably be pantone.com.

  7. Is this something all mods are also willing to apply to themselves?

    I know that sounds challenging, but there are two sites I am wary of in the Bloggernaccle. One, I refuse to ever participate in again. This one, I do occasionally, but only after bracing myself. It’s funny, because the two sites are rather oppositional, but from my perspective they are the same coin.

    Both have earned my wariness because of moderator tendency to harshly attack opposing opinions, without warning and without benefit of the doubt, no matter how they are worded.

    Tolerance can be a weapon as much as a unifier. I doubt BCC is any poorer for my reduced participation, but I might be less leery of commenting here if this is intended as a fresh start.

  8. Jason K. says:

    Treating others like people is the key. And I think you’re bang-on about the way that guys can turn women’s concerns into abstract debating points, effectively denying women full personhood in the process. I’ve done it, too, and I consider figuring out how to repent for that (collectively and individually) among the most important issues facing our church culture today. Learning how to navigate cultural and ideological diversity without trying to cram everyone in the same box is the other, not unrelated, big one, IMO. In both cases, learning to see one’s interlocutors as people–children of God, in the most basic Mormon sense–is the only way forward.

  9. A Happy Hubby says:

    I actually really like some honest and well thought out pushback. But that rarely starts with words like, “You are wrong!!!!”

    I think it is a real issue in American society for sure. I think the Internet has only amplified it.

    I was called out for making a joke that could be taken in a very wrong way. I actually appreciated that as it allowed me to clarify more of what I was trying to say. It made me remember to be careful and thoughtful about my posts. Make it worth the time someone reading.

    I am an engineer at heart. There is a term in electronics / audio of “signal to noise ratio”. There are some posts that I unsubscribe from because the “noise” gets to high and the value is lost (and I don’t have the time to read through, “yes you did”, “no I didn’t” – I have enough of that with my kids!!!)

  10. SilverRain, the answer to your question is yes.

  11. Brandon says:

    I’m a long time reader, but rarely comment.

    Steve, thanks for staying in the game even as it is filled with challeges. I think BCC fills an important role; your post gives me an inkling about the effort it takes. Thanks.

  12. Kristine says:

    Happy Hubby–thanks for being so good-natured about the calling out. It was actually a prime example of someone (me) responding heatedly without taking time to think of the person on the other end of the pixels. That old saw about good missionaries getting hotter wives pushes all kinds of buttons for me, not just the righteous grownup feminist ones, but also the ugly teenager that no one will ever think of as a prize ones. I loved that you responded not by being offended (or at least that you waited until you were finished being offended to write) and chastising me for my humorlessness, but by explaining and asking me to see more of you than that one unfortunate joke. That’s some serious zion-building mojo.

    We’re all less reasonable than we think, and anger makes everyone (with the possible exceptions of Angela and Cynthia) stupider. We could all stand to bring more of our inner engineer to bear on our interactions. And more of that basic Christian repentance and forgiveness stuff.

  13. “We’re all less reasonable than we think”

    Indeed, though I like to think that participation in the bloggernacle has made me a more reasonable person. At least I shudder to think of my early, less reflective days.

  14. Stream of consciousness: what’s the problem? . . . but didn’t you withdraw just the other day? . . . but that’s just idiosyncratic me . . . let’s look at that discussion again–wow that’s a lot of space taken up by men! . . . I didn’t notice consciously (why? Because there are names that I automatically tune out–and since that’s not treating them as real people that’s another aspect of the problem) . . . but I must have noticed at some level because what I ‘tune out’ becomes noise and that’s annoying and I leave . . .
    It’s a hard problem. Thanks for working it. I’ll stick around to watch and cheer. (Although the ‘no men’ and ‘three strikes’ specter is scary.)

  15. your food allergy is fake says:

    I have noticed that a frequent cause of thread degeneration is that inaccurate, sometimes uncharitable, assumptions are made about a commenter’s intent. Close and careful reading of comments, responding to arguments as they are written without assuming things about the commenter, can keep threads civil. This is the flip side of treating comments as people: we can incorrectly imagine the person we’re engaging with, and 50 comments later that misunderstanding has not improved.

    So I would suggest treating comments as disembodied text coupled with very careful reading can prevent a lot of these e-arguments.

  16. Amusing to see someone named “your food allergy is fake” give advice against uncharitable assumptions. Might have wanted to use a different username for that particular post, eh?

  17. So to carry the cocktail party analogy further, I can imagine I’m at a party and suddenly the host starts to make sarcastic and inaccurate comments about another family we all know and profess to be our friends, making fun of how they dress or how they discipline their children or what kind of car they drive. Then other guests start chiming in, reinforcing the rhetoric and piling on with their own cherry picked examples of just how bad this family is. If this other family is my friend and I think they are being misrepresented, and if the conversation is getting out of control and becoming more and more slanderous, do I just sit there with my mouth closed and think, “Hey, this isn’t my party” or do I speak up?

  18. This is good advice for the entire internet, but especially for what we discuss. Thanks for this. I need to get better at this whole “You’re not required to boldly proclaim your opposition to something you read on the internet” business.

  19. KLC, what would you do in real life? Try that.

  20. nothing assumed about your food allergy says:

    Quite right, Nepos. Corrected.

  21. I propose using the YFAIF acronym.

  22. This post is a great reminder. I often type out responses and then reread them, delete them, and walk away. Sometimes I hit send before I reread them and then I regret it later. I think it is important to take some time to think about what we are saying before we hit post.

    If that family is the ruling body of the group and the whole point of the cocktail party is to get together to talk about how that affects the people at the party and their lives (both the good and the bad), then you can bring up your counterarguments or counterexamples in a civil fashion. The OP talked about how important disagreement can be when we treat each other well, but the assumption that everyone has just gotten together to be a bunch of big jerks to some poor sad family is probably not a helpful assumption to start with.

  23. Mike W. says:

    Who reads comments? There are two kinds of people in this world. The people who get the big print that comes first, and the people who get the little print that comes after. Well, of course, there is the third kind. Those that are not allowed to even speak in little print.

  24. Mike, comments are sort of the point to me, in a way. The community aspect is a big reason for having a blog.

  25. Eric Russell says:

    “Conversations are more polarized, more hurtful and more difficult than ever.”

    I dunno, Steve, the early days were pretty raucous. I seem to remember whole threads without a genuinely civil comment except maybe danithew or Stapley. I think it’s more a culture change – what used to be a house party is indeed now a cocktail party, and inappropriate behavior stands out more.

  26. Steve, I know what I would do in real life, I’m asking how that scenario fits into the cocktail party analogy.

    EBK, I think your last sentence should have been rethought. I agree it’s not helpful to assume the party is just a bunch of jerks complaining, which is why I wouldn’t have ever proposed anything like that. It’s a party, or just a gathering of friends, people are talking, the conversation drifts into a gripe fest about someone not present and people start piling on. Have you never been in that kind of situation? Did you stay silent because it’s “not your party?” or did you speak up?

  27. Eric, yeah, things were raucous but somehow not hurtful. Not the same.

  28. If blogs are like cocktail parties then they are like cocktail parties advertised on freeway billboards. That surely changes the dynamics.

  29. Peter, yes and no. Speaking of blogs generally, I think you’re right. But the Bloggernacle is different, we’re already predominantly LDS and know the social conventions of talking with other Mormons. It’s not as much of a free-for-all as might be thought.

  30. I absolutely need (and would appreciate) a gentle tap on the shoulder every now and then. No complaints on that.

    But perhaps there could be just as much cracking down on comments that begin with: “I’m so sick and tired of…”, “I’m completely over…”, “I’m done with people who…”, etc.

    I can completely understand not wanting to reduce some issue to intellectual play things, but there is definitely an opposite extreme of angry-mob/Mussonlini-style engagement which also ought to be avoided. Anti-Mormons aren’t left with anything to say or do if the missionaries themselves act obnoxious enough… and the same could be said for any political/ideological movement.

  31. lady didymus says:

    “Although the ‘no men’ and ‘three strikes’ specter is scary.”

    Not nearly as scary as the comments on the Rape Culture post.

  32. Lady, indeed.

  33. As to Eric and Steve’s conversation regarding the “early days,” I think the difference is that there weren’t so many blogs. There were maybe three or four large blogs of note, and the community was smaller. So the expectation was that even if you were a “liberal” blog, you’d still have a lot of the more conservative commenters participating, and vice versa. (And, of course, T&S was only for overly pedantic lawyers and ne’er-do-wells back then.) Given that, I think while the discussions were “spirited,” different viewpoints were acknowledged more freely, because you knew who the people were that were making them, as much as you can online anyway, and knew they were generally good people, and could go on their blogs and make points as to their posts.

    My opinion is that the proliferation of blogs has not helped the discussion, because it’s made for echo chambers. People find their own niche, loosely correlated to whatever level of orthodoxy they see as appropriate, and then talk to like-minded people about how they are correct together. After awhile, they become less tolerant of other viewpoints, because everyone they care to interact with at that blog thinks like they do (at least in broad strokes). And so people who disagree are often shouted down. Those people, in turn, go to blogs more suited to their orthodoxy–or heterodoxy, as the case may be–and interact largely with only people who think like they do, and shout down people who don’t.

    It’s a cycle that creates an atmosphere of insularity and thus incivility, in my opinion. (And I say this as much a hypocrite as any, having seen my share of flame wars over the years.)

  34. lady didymus: No question (that is, I agree). If you have to have one or the other, kill the comments. But I gather Steve Evans is trying to have both–fewer triggering or scary comments, without banning individuals or classes of people. Best wishes (sincerely).

  35. Jimbob, there’s a lot of truth in what you say. But I don’t think the situation is irredeemable.

  36. KLC,
    I’m not sure I understand your scenario. Maybe if you explained it without the analogy. I think everyone here would agree that personal attacks to a commenter are a bad idea as well as broad generalizations about a particular group you may disagree with. Although that does happen on every side of the argument by both commenters and sometimes mods. Is that what scenario you are talking about?

  37. There’s clearly a lot of grey area between “delete pretty much everything that in anyway disagrees or criticizes with the post” and “allow almost any comments except for spam.” Parts of the bloggernacle do the extremes. I’m happy that BCC tries to navigate the grey area, as difficult as I’m sure that is. I think the important thing is to notice when things are going off track a little too much in one direction or another, and to make a slight course correction. If comments have been a bit off over the past day or two, perhaps it’s time for the blog to demonstrate a little more control.

  38. DeepThink says:

    Bless you, Steve. Forward to Zion from every URL.

  39. pconnornc says:

    I think the article & comments are a great opportunity for everyone to “self assess”.

    Something that I see happen regularly that seems to flame the fire is when someone asserts they know what people meant or were thinking by a comment (often assuming the worst).

    I am recalling the quote about not judging a man by what he hits. You never know what he was aiming for, and we rarely hit what we aim for. (anyone w/ author/exact quote?)

  40. EBK, it seems like a pretty transparent analogy and extension of the analogy to me. And my last question really steps outside the analogy, doesn’t it? When do you decide that speaking up overrides “it’s not my party?”

    Like Steve said in a following comment, this is an LDS blog and we’re all predominantly LDS, so that makes things different, which is why I added in my extension that part about friends talking poorly about another friend. I think we all have no problem seeing the social ineptness of someone vigorously and repeatedly objecting to typical cocktail party banter like which lane of I15 is fastest at rush hour or whether Cafe Rio food is all the same just with different names, but most of the really intense debates at BCC and other LDS blogs strike deeper to our cores than that.

    I see LDS blogs more like one of those gigantic Utah family reunions than a cocktail party. When we start talking critically about an institution and its leaders and its members that people hold as dear as their family, and I’m not in any way objecting to those kinds of discussions, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get passionate pushback. When you’re tackling non trivial topics that speak to the core of people’s identity it seems a little disingenuous to ask for dispassionate responses.

  41. Jason K. says:

    I think you’re right, KLC, that expecting people to be dispassionate is unreasonable. The real question is how to be passionate without being a jerk. I suspect that the answer mostly has to do with speedy repentance when you realize you’ve crossed the line, which requires checking the impulse to double down. The exchange between A Happy Hubby and Kristine on this thread and the Jane Austen one seems like a pretty good model, actually.

  42. Jason, “checking the impulse to double down” I think distills all internet commenting into one succinct warning. I’ve been guilty of it too many times.

  43. Jason K. says:

    Me too.

  44. More afraid of newsspeak than Trollese says:

    I think it’s clear that Steve’s post is a response to the comments on Rape Culture post, which I thought was very well written; perhaps because I agreed with it so strongly. I may have missed the most egregious comments as I sacrificed precious sleep to read through many of them, but they provoked a torrent of my own thoughts that left me sleepless and followed me through my commute this morning. And the core theme was something reiterated several times already, that seeing/listening to commenters as people is – or should be – heart and soul of these conversations.

    The following thoughts not meant to re-open yesterday’s rage-fest, but to tie today’s zion orientation to addressing these and other sensitive issues.

    Sexual abuse/assault/rape has reached into my personal and professional life in so many ways that I literally cannot track down each and every streaming tendril of its icy fire. I understand trigger words/posts/comments. And I recognize how the male philosophical (distancing/objectifying) perspective reifies the intial trauma. And yet I’m unable to shut down my own experiences as a therapist working with the court-ordered rapists and attempted murderers. Trained in feminist philosophy and approaches to therapy, and particularly as a specialist in treating violence against women, I did my best to set boundaries with these men, hold them accountable, equalize the power imbalances, etc. I also worked with their victims. The sad truth is that in abusive relationships most of the women returned to living with the abuser; so I worked with them both, with the primary focus of keeping the woman safe.

    The more I took the aforementioned approaches with the male clients, the more recalcitrant, and dangerous, they became. And so I switched tactics. I listened to them. And though I could not empathize with their darker responses, I chose not to objectify them. I learned that not every concern of theirs was ignorant, violent, or self serving. Once they knew that I saw them as people, they listened and followed along as I helped them learn to see their victims as people of equal value and worth.

    Now, as a victims’ advocate, there were times that I wanted to shut down the ugliness that I heard, I wanted to de-people the person in front of me because their words were so morally/politically/ethically incorrect. But when all of us, victims, therapist, abusers/rapists, learn to see and hear each other as persons of worth, the real healing happened. And most importantly for me, the violence went away.

    It wasn’t politically correct to humanize the abuser, to listen to their stories without shutting down the ugliness of their words (some would say that simply by not objecting I was validating); but it created the space to allow healthy solutions to be created.

    I understand and support the need to moderate the most egregious of comments. As with the victims I worked with, safety first, including from the true trolls. But we lose much if the comments section of BCC becomes nothing more than blancmange – we lose the opportunity to understand each other and learn from each other – as painful as our disagreements may be.

  45. I really appreciate you sharing that, More afraid of newsspeak than Trolles. Thank you, truly.

  46. Jason K. says:

    I also appreciate the perspective. Listening to occasionally ugly stories in a private therapy space and a public comment thread are two different things, though. I’m all in favor of figuring out how to respond to commenters in ways that invite vulnerability rather than defensiveness, but it ain’t easy.

  47. I’m impressed, Steve. Jolly good show.

  48. Loursat says:

    The comment thread under Michael Austin’s post on rape culture is utterly fascinating. It’s like performance art: commenters spontaneously emerge to demonstrate the problem that Austin decries. There must be some anthropological value in it. But this blog ought to provide something more than a spectacle.

    You’re asking us all to engage in a hard experiment, Steve. Creating a place for civil discussion of hair-trigger issues on the internet, of all places, in a time when bitterness and snark and strutting fascists are ascendant? That’s hard. It’s worth trying, though. If we succeed, then we’ve really got something, haven’t we?

  49. Indeed. And it is an experiment. I expect more failures. But that’s OK.

  50. Moderation is a difficult thing (far more difficult than people realize who don’t do it officially), and, generally, BCC did it very well when I was participating regularly. It is even more difficult when the discussions are of religious topics, especially emotional ones – and those are common here.

    My only observations:

    1) A desire to be current in a conversation can lead to rushed comments, which tend to be more emotional and less edited, which tend to cause misunderstanding and opposition. I try to read every comment I write before submitting it, seeing how I would respond if someone else wrote the exact same words about me and something I wrote. I still make mistakes, but I don’t make as many as I did when I first started commenting here.

    2) Humor is difficult in forums like this, especially subtle humor in sensitive threads. Generally, it is better to avoid attempts at humor when responding to a post that is not meant to be humorous, especially in a group with people who do ‘t know you well. This is a lesson I learned the hard way.

    3) A gentle, private note about why something is unacceptable goes a long way.

    4) There is an inherent tension between writing a post that will encourage civility in the comments and writing a post that is geared to provoke lots of comments. I have no advice about that tension, but it is worth understanding – by authors and commenters.

  51. Aussie Mormon says:

    Steve mate, I have to be honest here. That sounds like the biggest load of r…..
    Nah it actually sounds pretty good to me. But unfortunately the internet being the internet, will never be perfectly civilised unless everyone gets forced back on to 28kbps modems and 99.9% of sites no longer load in a period of time shorter than the attention span of those that cause the prob…. *SQUIRREL!*

  52. Hah!

  53. I appreciate your work, Steve, and that of all y’all at BCC who are trying to make a good space for discussion here. I don’t know what the answers are to the problems you note, but I love that you’re trying to think through what to do. I like the idea of asking us to step back when we’re not contributing productively, and I appreciate the warning that this might happen.

  54. Angela C says:

    Ziff: Suck up!

  55. Yeah seriously Ziff.

  56. MDearest says:

    My analogy for some blogs at least, is a differently-correlated sunday school class. With a teacher who has perhaps stepped out of the room. Here at BCC my imagination goes to the 16-17 year olds having a lark (or an intense debate,) and a Puritan minister-type who materializes without warning to bop an unruly commenter on the head with his boom tipped with a nerf ball.

    But my cheeky imagination notwithstanding, in my online activity, I often revisit things I read in one of Scott Peck’s books (Different Drum) about mortal humans trying to create a truly loving community, where differences are accepted and truly loved as well, as being very messy and trouble-prone in execution. But, fail or succeed, worth the venture.

  57. Sorry, Steve. I was hoping to get on your good side for the next time I get in a shouting match with someone here. Clearly I have overdone it. :)

  58. Rachael says:

    I whole-heatedly agree with your concerns, Steve. To bring it back to the comments in the rape discussion, you rightfully point out, “There is a tendency to discuss such ideas as abstract notions, political philosophies perhaps. But these are not hypotheticals for many of our readers (and authors).” I believe we (speaking collectively) like to approach these problems academically and at a distance for two reasons. First, we have inherited this cultural tradition of seeing reason as somehow opposed to passion/emotion. We tend to think that it is reason, completely devoid of passion, that will lead us to ultimate truth. So philosophically speaking, there is a tendency to approach problems in the abstract, to engage in conceptual analysis, to look for necessary and sufficient conditions, and to debate semantics.

    Second, if reason is seen as the best way to truth and emotion is seen as getting in the way of ultimate truth, we can see why historically, women’s voices have been silenced, because women are seen to be emotional while men are seen to be rational. To take this out of the historical context and into the present, when misogynistic men debate women on the internet they tend to use pejorative words like, ‘hysterical,’ ‘flail,’ ‘willy-nilly,’ ‘over-sensitive,’ ‘crazy,’ ‘irrational,’ ‘heavy-handed,’ you get the idea. In contrast, men are presented as rational, grounded, reflective.

    But I want to challenge this notion that truth is better served by reason drained of passion or emotion. In this particular case, what is more likely to get us at the truth of rape and the rape culture that allows victimizers to perpetrate and get away with their crimes: the views of a woman who has been raped and experienced firsthand the devastating emotional consequences of that act, together with the victim-blaming and silencing that is part and parcel of rape culture, or some dudes debating whether the term ‘rape culture’ sounds too harsh? If we have a rape culture problem, and we do, then getting to the truth of the matter requires listening to the voices of women who have experienced it first hand. Yes, it feels safer to distance the problem, to take it out of the personal and into the realm of ideas, to debate about semantics until we settle on a word that is innocuous and pleasant enough that we can all pat ourselves on the back and go home thinking “All is well in Zion.” But if we really want the truth of the matter, we must avoid the urge to do this. We must allow women’s voices to be heard on this matter, and we must refrain from taking them less seriously if they dare to wander too far off the path of pure reason and *gasp*, actually voice some emotion.

    Finally, given that 9 out of every 10 rape victims are female, and given that women are 75% less likely to speak when in a community of men, we need to be careful that men’s voices are not drowning out women’s voices on this important topic. In fact, in the study by the American Political Science Review that gave us the latter statistic, groups that were dominated by male voices tended to make decisions that did not show care for the vulnerable—the lowest members of the group. However, the researchers observed that when women were taken seriously, groups tended to arrive at different decisions, “swinging the group’s stance on the level of generosity given to the lowest member of the group.” If we want to swing our community’s stance toward greater levels of generosity towards the victims of rape, we need to hear from women. They need to feel like this is a safe space to speak up in, and be heard. I don’t think we need to go so far as to ban men from commenting, but if the men who have not experienced these things would be more concerned with listening rather than with getting their two cents in, I think our discussions could be more productive toward real solutions that support rape victims.

  59. Bingo. Rachael that is incredibly wise.

  60. Jason K. says:

    Very well said indeed, Rachael. Thank you.

%d bloggers like this: