AngryFrenchGuy

If you get to call us separatists, then we get to call you Evil Empire.

with 84 comments

Flyers beat Montreal

How do you say indépendentiste in English?

There is no word.

This is not trivial. English-speaking journalists will use the Parti Québécois’s terminology and call the party’s supporters sovereignists. In casual conversation the highly pejorative separatist is nearly universal.

But how do you call someone who supports the secession of Québec from the Canadian federation on the general concept of the right to self-determination but who is not necessarily a nationalist or a supporter of the Parti québécois’ (increasignly vague) plan for sovereignty?

These terms are inadequate to reflect the nuances within Québec society on the definition of an independent Québec and it’s political and economic relations with other countries. In English there is only the PQ as the polite face of the radical raving-mad separatists.

As a friend who got tired of being called a separatist once said:  Separatist?  What do you think this is?  Star Wars?

Éric Grenier discussed this in his blog Sovereignty en Anglais a few weeks ago in his post on the tactical debates raging within the Parti Québécois:

“French has a lot of words that simply don’t work well in English. “Référendisme” is one of them. Péquiste (PQ members), adéqiste (ADQ members), bloquiste (Bloc members), are other ones that can’t be directly translated (aydeeque-iste?). ”

It is extremely interesting to realize that over 40 years after the creation of the modern Québec independence movement there are still no words in the English language for some of the most basic concepts of the movement’s terminology or even names for the members of Québec’s main political parties.

Is this because an Anglo can only be a Liberal?

Can he only be a Liberal because the independence movement rejects him or is it his community, media and language that unilaterally rejects a whole political movement by not even having words to represent it’s ideas and concepts?

Who is rejecting who is debatable. But the reality is that French Québec, nationalism and even the independence movement has a plurality of political parties and movements, from the far left internationalists of Québec Solidaire to the impatient nationalists of the new Parti indépendantiste (PI, get it?).

Québec’s Anglos somehow never participate in any significant way in any of those movements. Their language excludes them a priori from a “separatist” movement of “pure laine” (notice how the expression “pure laine”, used to make a clear distinction between old-stock French-canadians and other people living in Québec, DID make it into the English vocabulary!) nationalists. They read the Gazette and vote Liberal. Period.

When he saw that 97% of Anglophones had voted against sovereignty in the 1995 referendum Pierre Bourgault concluded: “According to me, 60 to 65% would’ve represented a democratic vote, 80% a xenophobic vote and 97%… that’s simply a racist vote.”

It is not only the English language that has a more limited vocabulary. Take the distinction increasingly made by English-speakers between Quebecer, taken to mean the civic citizenship–the residents of the province of Québec–and the word Québécois, referring to an ethnic group, the French-speaking descendents of New France settlers.

In French, there are no words to make that distinction. Only Québécois. Does that reflect exclusion: there is the Québécois and there is the others? Or does is it illustrate inclusion: all who live in Québec are Québécois?

Perhaps it depends on who you ask.

Written by angryfrenchguy

May 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

84 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Acajack : “…their take on the issue is usually: “What’s up with Quebec anglos? Why do so many of them not speak French, when they’ve lived here all their lives? You’re living in Quebec! Get with the program! Speak French!”

    I don’t want to continue to take this thread off topic, so I’ll try to respond to this particular pet peeve of mine while relating it to the theme of the orginal post.

    Can we generally say that much of the linguistic debate over the past few decades has really been about allophones and the language group they integrate into? Bill 101 wasn’t about forcing anglophones to assimiltate and I don’t believe it was primarily about preventing teh assimilation of francophones, although that is certainly a concern for many.

    Everyone here knows that before 101, the majority of new arrivals attended english school and most probably adopted english as their first language (or second, ahead of french though). The situation created was, as described above, a pur laine vs. the others one. No doubt that for a majority group this would be extremely frustrating, so measures were taken to correct the situation.

    If the present linguistic tension is going to be blamed entirely on biased anglo media and its intentional use of language to influence people, then how do you explain the attitudes of non pur-laine francophones like Acajack’s neighbors? It’s an attitude that I have seen for myself. Some of the most vehement deniers of my Quebecoiness were themselves immigrants to the place where my grandparents’ grandparents were born.

    So where do they get their perceptions of Quebec society from? Why do they feel justified in telling me to “get with the program” or worse of questioning my belonging to their nation? I can’t even fathom moving to the southern California and telling a hispanic American toe get with the program, unless I watched Lou Dobbs every night. I wouldn’t dream of proudly declaring myself an American, while questioning the status of someone who has centuries old roots in the country, unless it was made clear to me that because I possesed a certain trait (english as a first language) I had a right to make such an arrogrant claim.

    It’s no accident that Jacques Parizeau didn’t blame money and the anglo vote. The anglo vote is neither needed nor wanted, apparantly. The ethnic vote, however, is. If I were Acajack’s neighbor I would probably look down on anglo’s too.

    Rorybellows

    May 6, 2008 at 7:52 pm

  2. Something I forgot to include in my previous post: the perception that anglos don’t speak french, as Acajack’s neighbor believes. That, above anything, is used as justification for belittling anglo Quebecers. Its also not true. But most of the people who read JdeM’s piece about the army of unilingual anglos taking over Montreal’s service jobs might not realize that.

    Do we still want to blame the Gazette and its “angryphone” (the anglo equivalent of separatist) readers for every linguistic problem in Montreal?

    Rorybellows

    May 6, 2008 at 8:21 pm

  3. Rorybellows says: “The anglo vote is neither needed nor wanted, apparantly. The ethnic vote, however, is.”

    Goodness gracious… The anglo vote is *wanted*, but it is not *expected*. People like Lévesque tried to include in speeches references to “growing” numbers of English speakers joining the cause, despite having not that much of a basis, if only to make them feel welcome in advance. But others, I think, feel that, if the wind has been blowing one way for a while, it’s silly to expect and predict it to go the other way next tuesday.

    What upsets Quebecers, French-speakers and the allophones Acajack speaks of, is the apparent will of English-speakers to live in ‘aparthood’ from the surrounding society, which they understand as a sign of a lack of respect, or even contempt.

    That includes a monolithic voting pattern referred to by Bourgault. It’s not the idea that a majority votes against sovereignty, it is that there seems to be no major effort to consider the question on a democratic basis, where one considers how question can affect the whole of Quebec society, and not only the interests of their own group. Or, how do they say… ah yes, ethnocentrism.

    The negative aspects of a political system governed by personal interests have been recognized and documented by such thinkers as Plato, Aristotle and Polybius. It isn’t a better idea here.

    Liberlogos

    May 6, 2008 at 11:43 pm

  4. Liberlogos: “Goodness gracious… The anglo vote is *wanted*, but it is not *expected*. People like Lévesque tried to include in speeches references to “growing” numbers of English speakers joining the cause, despite having not that much of a basis, if only to make them feel welcome in advance. But others, I think, feel that, if the wind has been blowing one way for a while, it’s silly to expect and predict it to go the other way next tuesday”

    Fair enough. Nobody in the independance movement would refuse the support of an anglo, but they sure wouldn’t change a single aspect of their platform to get it. Nor should they, Parizeau’s “nous”, along with increased support among the “ethnics” ought to be enough.

    Liberlogos: “What upsets Quebecers, French-speakers and the allophones Acajack speaks of, is the apparent will of English-speakers to live in ‘aparthood’ from the surrounding society, which they understand as a sign of a lack of respect, or even contempt.

    That includes a monolithic voting pattern referred to by Bourgault. It’s not the idea that a majority votes against sovereignty, it is that there seems to be no major effort to consider the question on a democratic basis, where one considers how question can affect the whole of Quebec society, and not only the interests of their own group. Or, how do they say… ah yes, ethnocentrism”

    I don’t know that the supposed self-isolation of anglos is apparant, nor do I see it is necessarily an act of hostility in cases where it does exist. I would hope that the Quebecois would understand that wanting to resist assimilation isn’t a sign of contempt for another linguistic group.

    But I’m really not convinced that there is a general will among anglos to live apart from the rest of Quebecers. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, anglos typically can speak french to some degree, and are willing to without hesitation in many situations.

    But, keeping the myth of a ghettoized community that can’t or won’t speak french is too advantageous for two reasons. 1-Maintaining these attitudes allows the anglos to be vilified for standing in the way of Quebec’s progress. If anglos were seen as open and bilingual, then any attempt to blame the for Quebec’s problems would be based solely on ethnicity. 2-Preventing new arrivals from integrating into the anglophone community is essential to the growth of the francophone majority. Whether it is intentional or not, an immigrant learns that the anglo is a wealthy descendant of an imperialst system (when the immigrant may be arriving from a country where imperialism existed) and that he refuses to learn a second language (when the immigrant is often capable of speaking multiple languages). Who do you expect that immigrant identify with?

    Are the voting patterns of anglos are evidence of ethnocentrism? Again, I have to point out that it is possible that the question itself is the product of ethnocentrism. If so, voting against such a question is an individual act of self-interest. Is that wrong? If so, I suggest that none of you should be voting for the BQ, since their presence in parliament doesn’t benefit the majority of Canadians. I don’t presume to know why each anglophone voted no, but I would never suggest that any individual vote can be labeled as an act of racism, so why does the label apply to the collective votes of the whole community?

    Rorybellows

    May 7, 2008 at 1:28 am

  5. English is winning over french in Canada and Quebec.

    In 100 years, Montreal is very likely to look like what Ottawa is now: an anglophone city where some people speak french as an ethnic code. French is dying in Canada. Quebec is next. That’s why I am angry.

    I don’t know why english people are complaining since they are winning the language war. About 1 billion people in the world know english to some degree. They can go to any tourist place in the world and get served in the native language.

    quebecois separatiste

    May 7, 2008 at 7:43 am

  6. A few responses to Rory Bellows’ thoughtful points.

    “Can we generally say that much of the linguistic debate over the past few decades has really been about allophones and the language group they integrate into? Bill 101 wasn’t about forcing anglophones to assimiltate and I don’t believe it was primarily about preventing the assimilation of francophones, although that is certainly a concern for many.”

    Agreed 100% (or 101%!). But of course some people still try to portray Bill 101 as an effort to assimilate anglophones, as you know.

    “If the present linguistic tension is going to be blamed entirely on biased anglo media and its intentional use of language to influence people, then how do you explain the attitudes of non pur-laine francophones like Acajack’s neighbors? It’s an attitude that I have seen for myself. Some of the most vehement deniers of my Quebecoiness were themselves immigrants to the place where my grandparents’ grandparents were born.”

    Good point. It must indeed be galling. I went to university in Ontario and was quite often told to go back to France by Hungarian-Canadians whose parents came here after the Soviet represssion in 1956, or Indo-Canadians whose parents fled Idi Amin’s Uganda. As someone whose ancestors were here around the time of Samuel de Champlain and what they’re celebrating in Quebec City this summer, I know how you feel.

    “So where do they get their perceptions of Quebec society from? Why do they feel justified in telling me to “get with the program” or worse of questioning my belonging to their nation?”

    It’s all about socialization. Think about it. Howard Galganov was not born Howard MacKenzie into a Montreal Golden Square Mile family. I believe he is of Russian Jewish origin. Yet he came to espouse (and even embody) the worst (in my opinion) of the anti-French Anglo-Montreal mentality that, thankfully, today is not shared by the majority of that community’s leadership. This happened through socialization. The people I know have been socialized as Quebec francophones, so it’s not surprising that their views can be representative of the range of views you will find across French-speaking Quebec. Opinions are not programmed in one’s gene pool, they are acquired over time.

    “Something I forgot to include in my previous post: the perception that anglos don’t speak french, as Acajack’s neighbor believes. That, above anything, is used as justification for belittling anglo Quebecers. Its also not true. But most of the people who read JdeM’s piece about the army of unilingual anglos taking over Montreal’s service jobs might not realize that.”

    My neighbours don’t believe that no anglos speak French, only that a significant number of them don’t and are rude about it. We should also wonder where they got this impression… probably partly by seeing certain anglos “in action”, right? Now, it doesn’t usually happen every day but here in Gatineau in the Outaouais, there isn’t a month that goes by that I don’t at least once witness, for example, a pimple-faced teenage girl working in a dépanneur greet a customer with a smiling “Bonjour Monsieur, comment ça va”, only to have the customer reply to her rudely in English (sometimes it’s even with a “Doncha speak English?!?”). OK, I know I live next to Ontario and people are going to blame people from across the river. But more often than not, when I happen to exit the place around the same time as the rude customer, he or she is driving a car with Quebec plates. No doubt that my neighbours and other “francisé” immigrants have witnessed these displays as well.

    On the other hand, the impression I have is that people who are from Ontario – unless they are drunk – generally tread very carefully with service staff in Quebec. Often in their minds, they’re in “foreign” territory as soon as they cross the Ottawa River, and would be wont to cause a scene just because someone addressed them in French.

    Note also that I lived in a minority francophone setting in Ontario for some 20 years, and although French-language service was usually sorely lacking where I lived (in spite of the fact that about one third of the population was francophone), I never really witnessed any such outbursts from francophones. (And I worked in retail in a whole bunch of places, alongside unilingual anglos.) Francophones outside Quebec (except for Acadians in northern New Brunswick) tend to be very submissive when it comes to language. It does make for a really nice bunch of people… who unfortunately may not be around in a generation or two. But that’s a whole other debate…

    “Are the voting patterns of anglos are evidence of ethnocentrism? Again, I have to point out that it is possible that the question itself is the product of ethnocentrism. If so, voting against such a question is an individual act of self-interest. Is that wrong? If so, I suggest that none of you should be voting for the BQ, since their presence in parliament doesn’t benefit the majority of Canadians. I don’t presume to know why each anglophone voted no, but I would never suggest that any individual vote can be labeled as an act of racism, so why does the label apply to the collective votes of the whole community?”

    I totally agree with you here. One cannot blame Anglo-Quebecers for voting Non out of self-interest. Who would want to swap a country where you are three quarters of the population to one where you are less than one tenth?

    That said, I did find that the media coverage in the anglo media (both inside and outside Quebec) in the last referendum campaign was totally biased and a blatant violation of almost all journalistic principles. It is very apparent when you watch documentaries on the work of journalists during the campaign – one that comes to mind is the excellent Référendum Prise Deux / Referendum Take Two. This film also contains the only evidence to my knowledge of a political penchant on the part of legendary Téléjournal anchor Bernard Derome. Derome is off camera, and he’s getting results from his crew in his earpiece. At one point he gets the news that the SRC’s gurus have confirmed the Non side has won, and Derome lets out a huge sigh and an air of disappointment comes over his face. He then composes himself, the cameras come back on and he delivers the news like a true pro.

    It is a truism in anglo circles across this country that francophone journalists are massively in favour of independence, even (to some people’s great dismay) those who are employed by the federally-funded CBC French networks. In 1995, RDI, the French counterpart to Newsworld, was unfairly labelled RD-Oui. But the truth is that, no matter what the reporters’ personal biases may be, the francophone media tell both sides of the story almost flawlessly, with balanced views that the anglo audience is almost never exposed to. I once complained to the CBC because the hosts of the highly respected radio show As it Happens referred to Bloc Québécois MPs as “bozos” in a serious interview with a politician from another party! This stuff is common in the anglo media, where the issue of Quebec’s place in Canada is a black and white, good vs. evil story.

    Acajack

    May 7, 2008 at 9:02 am

  7. I was Doncha speak English?!?’d yesterday by a doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital in dowtown Montreal.

    I’ve worked in hospitality and agree with Acajack that English-Canadians tread very carefully with language in Québec. The only exception, people from Ottawa.

    I don’t know about the rest of you but something not right is going on in that city. There are Canadians from all over Canada able to communicate decently in French today, yet, I would meet on a daily basis people from Ottawa unable to count to three or understand “toilette” with a french accent. I sometime wondered if there was not an active effort to block French out.

    On the other hand, I would almost have to fight Francophones from Ottawa to speak French with them. You hear their accent, you know they hear yours, you tell them: “C’est OK, je parle Français” and they would still throw their hands up: “It’s OK French or English. I don’t care! Really, It’s all the same to me. I don’t mind speaking English!”

    I would speculate the bilingualisation of the Federal civil service has left some pretty deep scars in that city.

    angryfrenchguy

    May 7, 2008 at 9:36 am

  8. quebecois separatiste writes:

    “ohhh and i absolutely encourage people like Howard Galganov or Tony Kondaks to leave Quebec.”

    News flash: I left Quebec 13 years ago.

    I also left http://www.angryfrenchguy.com because it is a censored website.

    Tony Kondaks

    May 7, 2008 at 10:24 am

  9. As you say, there is a lot of frustration in Ottawa with the federal government’s bilingualism requirements for the public service. The perception in a lot of circles is that only francophones need apply, and that it’s even a make-work project for francos. The lightning rods for this sentiment are the letters section of the Ottawa Sun and CFRA, Ottawa’s only talk radio station, particularly the Lowell Green Show.

    There has been great resistance to bilingualism at the municipal level in Ottawa, the fear being that official city bilingualism will lead to the francophone only “closed shop” at city hall that people falsely believe to be already in place in the federal government.

    Retail service in French is astonishingly rare as well. When I am in Ottawa with unilingual francophone family members and service staff are forced to trot out their broken French to serve them, invariably they’ll say: “Sorry my French is so bad, but I swear to God, no one EVER asks to be served in French here, so I never get to practise it.” Yeah right.

    Acajack

    May 7, 2008 at 10:32 am

  10. Yé Tony’s back!

    So tell us Tony? How is the battle for “freedom of choice” in education and other “fundamental rights” for the 30% of Hispanics in your new home of Arizona going?

    Do you have your Partido Igualidad going yet?

    angryfrenchguy

    May 7, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  11. “I don’t presume to know why each anglophone voted no, but I would never suggest that any individual vote can be labeled as an act of racism, so why does the label apply to the collective votes of the whole community?”

    I’m closer to AngryFrenchGuy’s way of putting things, when he says a part of the community voted well-informed, and a for a segment, maybe not so much.

    Liberlogos

    May 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm

  12. “I’m closer to AngryFrenchGuy’s way of putting things, when he says a part of the community voted well-informed, and a for a segment, maybe not so much.”

    And to make it absolutely clear, my way of seeing it is that, at the end of the day, MOST anglos WERE well informed and in good faith and that, yes, of course, there were were some uninformed xenophobic francos voting yes for all the wrong reasons.

    But the consistently Stalinist voting patterns of some sectors of english Montreal are not indicators of a healthy democratic society.

    angryfrenchguy

    May 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  13. I’ll be happy to return to participating on your forum, angryfrenchguy, if you stop censoring me.

    What we can do is this: if you feel that I’ve written something offensive that you don’t want on your site, you can delete it…BUT then mention that you’ve done deleted something I’ve written AND allow me, in a subsequent post, to LINK to what was deleted that I will post somewhere else on the web (such as a page on my Google Docs account). That way what I’ve written won’t offend you or others and I can still write what I want without feeling that I am censored.

    Do you agree?

    Tony Kondaks

    May 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  14. shut up tony.

    merci

    Anonymous

    May 7, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  15. “I have seen that “subset of humanity” attitude for many of my 53 years, and it has always made me sick and angry at these anglos whenever I heard it. But the truth is I haven’t heard that for a very, very long time. At least, not in Montreal.”

    Well, it’s far from dead. I have the privilege of having a first name that is irish and a last name that is very quebecois. This makes me the target of racism from both groups and let me tell you, they dish it out equally. I have been called or heard my friends be called “stupid frenchies” more than I have heard people call people “maudits anglais”. I’ve also been privy to several rants about how terrible one side or the other is. Maybe I move in the wrong crowds, but I seem to run into the “subset of humanity” who rant about how terrible “the French” are more than I run into the one that rants about “les anglais”.

    I also find it more than annoying to be asked where I come from just based on my rather uncommon first name, but I’ve learned to relish the opportunity to challenge people’s prejudices. The same way I challenge the prejudices of those who think that I have to fit into a certain rigid category because I identify myself as Quebecoise. Racism is very far from dead on both sides and to say that it’s almost disappeared in its more virulent in the anglophone population of montreal is laughable.

    SM

    May 10, 2008 at 12:06 am

  16. Apropos of both hockey and ethnic designations, readers here might be amused–or even perturbed–to know that during the recent playoff series, Flyers fans routinely used the term “French” to refer both to the Canadiens and to their fans who came down to Philadelphia to cheer them on, even if those fans were English speakers. (I regret also to report that in this connection some Flyers fans used ethnic slurs which I would prefer not to repeat here. I find it ironic that these same fans cheer their lungs out for “Danny” Briere and “Marty” Biron.) Even if you are an English speaking Montrealer, you are “French” enough for many Flyers fans if you wear that Canadiens’ jersey. Just one of the many unforeseen effects of Bill 101, I suppose…

    littlerob

    May 10, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  17. The situation in the US is different. The Spanish speaking have never had any language rights, and if somehow they could get them, it would be called PROGRESS. The Quebec English speaking did have those rights, but they were taken away from them, that’s called REGRESS.
    And by the way, its IGUALDAD, not IGUALIDAD.

    Anonymous

    May 11, 2008 at 12:34 pm

  18. Please specify a language right English Quebecers have lost.

    angryfrenchguy

    May 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  19. The right to work in their language and the right to have service in their language, although some of then often receive service in English, it’s not because a law gives them this right.

    Anonymous

    May 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  20. Where is it forbidden for Anglos to work in English? Where is it forbidden for Anglos to give and receive services in English?

    angryfrenchguy

    May 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm

  21. Language of work of anglophones in Quebec.

    French only: 7.1%
    Mostly french (some english) : 16.2%
    Equal french, english: 10%
    Mostly english (some french): 35%
    Only english: 31.7%

    Source: OQLF latest thousands of pages studies.
    Now… who said that english is forbidden at work?

    Services? are you joking? In Montreal it is often more difficult to get service in french.

    quebecois separatiste

    May 11, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  22. Your numbers are probably right, but I’m talking about laws that grant rights, not facts.
    An English speaking person doesn’t have the RIGHT to DEMAND English service, and there isn’t a LAW that gives English speakers the right to work in English.

    Anonymous

    May 11, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  23. So you’d want to trade places with Francophones?

    angryfrenchguy

    May 11, 2008 at 8:56 pm

  24. so you admit that you are oppressed by ink on papers and not by fact?

    quebecois separatiste

    May 11, 2008 at 10:59 pm

  25. Oh they have the right to demand service in English, if it’s a federal service. If not… Well, if I went and tried to get service in French in a corner store in Saskatchewan, I doubt I’d get it. I don’t expect to, either. And there is no law saying that private institutions here aren’t allowed to address their customers in English. Most stores I go to, I get service in English, but I do, sometimes, have trouble getting it in French, despite living in a francophone province. So yes, I see how oppressive these laws are.

    SM

    May 11, 2008 at 11:55 pm

  26. My sense is that the reason you get votes like 97% against separatism is that the Anglo community has zero confidence that an independent Quebec nation would protect their interests. It’s fear that seems like the motivating factor, not racism.

    edgy555

    May 13, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  27. I agree with edgy555, in an independent Quebec there wouldn’t be a “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” or a “Supreme Court of Canada”.

    Anonymous

    May 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

  28. Oh jeez, I wish we could just co-exist peacefully. Ironically, the best way to understand each other, is to learn each other languages: english and french. However, learning a language won’t turn one canadian or quebecois. I’m still discriminated against by some unilingual francophones (i say some) so i won’t generalize) because of my faint accent. I was even told off very condescendingly for no reason at all. With that being sad, I’d rather know four languages than only one. Knowing more than one languages is the best thing I’ve ever done including french.

    Anonymous

    May 14, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  29. Do they rather be called ethnocentric nationalist like Howard Galganov says a lot.

    All those terms, separatists, independantist, secessionnist, sovereigntist, nationalist have comed to mean the same thing in the end.

    However they don’t.

    And as wicked as it may seems, separatists could definitely be the milder one of all for those who know what they are talking about.

    For those talking through their hats, go back to your homeworks.

    Regards,

    Mister Machine

    Tym Machine

    May 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

  30. @SM:

    “Well, if I went and tried to get service in French in a corner store in Saskatchewan, I doubt I’d get it.”

    Some French communities like Belgarde, you’d probably get it however maybe not in Regina, however, you may get dirty looks but it’s not against the law to do it.

    Tym Machine

    May 16, 2008 at 10:42 am


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: