Welcome to
the forums at bobdunsire.com
bobdunsire.com forums bobdunsire.com forums
You can reset your password by going here. Be sure to try your current email and any email addresses you may have had in the past.
Otherwise please use the Contact Us link at the bottom of the forums. In order to help you, please provide the following info: Your Display Name from the old forum and any possible email addresses you would have used before. Without that info we cannot locate your account.


Go Back   Bob Dunsire Bagpipe Forums > Other (not GH) Bagpipes > Uilleann, Northumbrian, Smallpipes +
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Uilleann, Northumbrian, Smallpipes + For all types of (non GH) Bagpiping discussions.

Platinum Sponsors
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-08-2016, 09:49 AM   #1
Rob_Say
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 46
Default Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Hello - I had the misfortune to be directed to a recent thread on 'the session' forums where William Henry Gratton Floods 'History of the Music of Ireland' and the 'The Story of the Bagpipe' were being discussed. I recall going through WHGF a couple of times and mentally filing it under useful anecdotes / dubious claims.

So when I read this: https://thesession.org/discussions/38717 to my utter horror I discovered that someone, somewhere on the internet was wrong! I'm not a member over there - and this is place is a better home for rational discussion.

The specific challenge was to verify why WHGF is considered suspect and to point out specific instances of known inaccuracies ...

OK. Challenge accepted - and I'll just use Northumbrian pipes as a starting point because those are the bits that I remembered.

The book in question is the 1911 "Story of the Bagpipe" (https://archive.org/stream/storyofbagpipe00floo)

  • Page 109: "St Aidan, the Apostle of Northumbria, and his Irish monks must have have taught Irish singing, as well as the harp and the bagpipe. St Cuthbert, too, cultivated Celtic pslamody, and Prince Aldfrid of Northumbria, who had spent some years in Ireland, gave a fillip to the musical tastes of his people"

Reification - 'must have' is a completely unsupported assertion, the author would have the reader accept the idea as real. Given no supporting evidence or references - at best it's wishful thinking.

(This lunatic concept of St Cuthbert or St Aidan as the founding father of NSP has popped up in Northumberland a couple of times over the years - outlandish claims require outstanding proof)
  • Page 178: "Dalyell, in his observations as to the identity of the Lowland and the Northumbrian pipes, is fairly correct, but he fails to notice that both instruments are clearly borrowed from the Irish Uilleann pipes. In fact, it may be taken for granted that the only difference between the Lowland and the Northumbrian pipes is one of size, the Northumbrian being the smaller."
'Clearly borrowed' is an unsupported opinion (wishful thinking fallacy again). There is evidence of cross fertilisation in the late 18th & early 19th C (Robert Reid made innovations in both types). The opinion fails to register that there is also a distinct history bellows piping in the century prior to this time not just limited to Northumberland & the Borders but throughout England & Scotland.(fallacy of omission). Nicholas Carolan provides a much clearer (referenced) discussion of the pipes in this period: http://www.itma.ie/images/uploads/unionpipes.pdf (May, 2012)

"only difference ... is one of size" - factual error. Northumbrian Pipes (as known at the time to WHGF & Dalyell) are also distinct in having a closed end, keys, a cylindrical bore and that the 'second scale' was a 5th above rather an 4th as on the Lowland pipes. If the closed chanter instruments are discounted, the Northumbrian pipes of the period had roughly the same range of size as those found across the Border (based on extant dated instruments).

WHGF does mention this difference on the following page but fails to use and maintain the critical distinction between older and newer forms. This means that every time he uses or quotes the term 'Northumbrian pipes' we don't actually know what he means (an equivocation error).
  • Page 179 : "About the year 1765 Francis Peacock issued a collection of airs for the Northumbrian Pipes."
Factual Error: John Peacock's collection was published in or around 1798 and this was well known in WHGFs time.
  • Page 180: "In concluding this chapter it is well to note that the Lowland pipers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were extremely versatile, and we read that the expert performers were able to sing, dance, and play at the same time. This applies to Border and Northumbrian pipers as well as to those of the Lowlands."
This is unsupported & uncritical commentary - dancing whilst playing bellows blown Border pipes is highly improbable (based on my own research) and we cannot judge the source as no reference is provided (error of false authority). There is also a factual error; Northumbrian pipes (as WHGF would have known of them) did not exist in 16th & 17th century - they were developed in the late 18th (see Peacock's book & earlier equivocation error)

Even without the laughable St Aidan assertion, that's 3 consecutive pages and multiple major fallacies. All of these inaccuracies are used as support of an pre-conceived opinion (that the Lowland & Northumbrian pipes derive solely from historical Irish pipes). This work would fail any first year undergrad assessment.



phew - glad I got that off my chest.

R

Last edited by Rob_Say; 03-08-2016 at 09:57 AM.
Rob_Say is offline  
Gold Sponsor
Old 03-08-2016, 12:36 PM   #2
CalumII
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: London Town
Posts: 5,249
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Well done on bothering to type all that out (I'm the same Calum who got a bit snarky on the Session thread).

What is most frustrating about Flood is that he clearly had the material and the knowledge to produce a really valuable piece of scholarship.
CalumII is offline  
Old 03-08-2016, 03:20 PM   #3
tenthpiper
Forum Silver Medal
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ireland / Spain
Posts: 490
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Very interesting, but I have to point out at least one error you are making , but i acknowledge that does not , in and of itself, have bearing on your other points regarding floods lack of knowledge regarding the Northumbrian Pipes, which are glaringly obvious upon examination.
If you go back to the other thread you will note that the whole idea was to enquire....
i wouldnt want to suggest your work is valueless because you are mistaken in one or more areas and it would seem churlish to do so.
It is quite possible to dance and play bellows pipes , if your good enough. The fact that you yourself cant does not mean its impossible.... However rare and extraordinary the dancing Uilleann piper might be , at least one exists! And that has to be alot harder than dancing with a closed system chanter.

For example I can do a spinning reverse roundhouse kick and play the whistle without missing a beat. I can almost do the same while playing the fiddle but its a lot harder and I need more practice. i dont know that anyone else can do that... But that doesnt mean it cant be done !

Regarding St Aiden, did he teach Irish song? We have seen no evidence that he did, but that doesnt mean he didnt, the evidence may not exist or maybe it existed then but not any more or we just havent seen it.....we dont know is the best that can be said IMO.
Its simply an unproven assertion, as is your own , that at "best its wishfull thinking. " can you demonstrate that it was not? , just as he did not demonstrate that it was, Both positions are not founded on evidence that is presented to us.
However Considering Irish was used as early as 600ad in the glosses its not such a great leap of faith to suggest that so was song , in the vernacular, a part of Monastry life .The opposite position IMO is the one that is unlikely. But do explain why they would not sing the songs they were used toand grew up with , While milking the goats perhaps ? Who knows....
Why would they abandoned aspects of their culture? Im asking, not saying they wouldnt, just that i personally dont know.

I note Flood does provide an extensive bibliography to reference his work. I dont possess those books so Its hard , 100 yrs later, to really know what evidence there was that he was useing and its validity. That in and of itself is no reason to disregard everything he wrote because its quite easy to verify some of it.
it appears to me that Flood based most of his work on secondary sources and clearly relied on some that were erroneous. This is not uncommon.

Your the first person that has actually demonstrated a specific fallacy thats great , really helpful, i appreciate it, even if you make a number your self in your post that does not invalidate the fact that he was mistaken in certain specific incidences that you point out.
But again ,there was no internet then, no amazon , he had dusty old papers in dim libraries to work with.
How will modern research be viewed in 100 yrs? The works we use as reference material now may well be laughed at and disregarded just as Flood is Today.....
It only takes 1 item of incontravertsble evidence to arrive and upset an entire carreer and reputation.
Mistakes are to be expected, like I said in the other thread. A few rotten pieces of fruit from a tree dont demonstrate that the tree does not contain masses of good fruit. The faults are obvious to see, so they are easy to pick out and criticise. While ignoring all the good fruit.

Looking at your post I notice other errors or questionable assumptions and information you state as fact.
For example the peacock manuscript. Here Colin Ross states it was published in the first decade of the 19th c... Who is making a factual error here?

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/music...ts/peacock.pdf We have another more specific date of 1805 else where.

Regarding singing and piping . That is not a problem at all for singers who can pipe. Singing and piping and danceing, not problem . i can do that with my pastoral pipes....
I also note he says " issued "around 1765, not published. Yes it could be synonymous, but that does not take into account that a number of hand written copys could have been circulated amongst friends decades earlier.
Publishing in those days was not quite so easy and was an expensive process , very valuable works were never published because the author could not find enough subscribers to finance the operation.

I also might as well point out another error in your post for good measure, you say that there is a critical difference between some northumbrian pipes and other northumbrian pipes.
But you clearly suggest they are both Northumbrian pipes.... So the catagory is clear and he is refering to the catagory of Northumbrian pipes. The fact that a specialist might sub catagorise is irrelvant , especially in a book entitled 'story!' Are you familiar with other books in that series from that time period? Are they of a similar nature? Yes, actually they are.They are for the general reading populace .
If i say I watched TV last night, thats a statement . It does not indicate any subcategorisation... Whether it is black and white, colour , digital , widescreen. , is irrelevant and not a critical distinction.Its a simple statement . ( actualy i made it up , i dont have a tv)

Anyhow. Glad i got that off my chest
.
__________________
Beginners Mind, Zen Mind, No Mind.
tenthpiper is offline  
Old 03-08-2016, 06:34 PM   #4
Klondike Waldo
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Braintree MA USA
Posts: 8,347
Send a message via AIM to Klondike Waldo
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

It's a little enough fault, but I do find irksome in what should be taken as an academic discussion to have "your" repeatedly used rather than "you're" or "you are."
__________________
Slainte Leibh/ Slan Leat, Bob Cameron
Klondike Waldo is online now  
Old 03-08-2016, 09:48 PM   #5
tenthpiper
Forum Silver Medal
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ireland / Spain
Posts: 490
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Its not really an academic discussion, it was a chat in a pub . The session.org This is also not an academic forum, its true it offers us the wealth of knowledge with a number of academic contributers , But no tenures or professorships are involved, no obligation to have a degree or three, PHD not a requirement to contribute , we are not being paid to post here, well Im not . ( sorry my Excuse is im on a small touch screen and my proof reader wont take on extra work without pay)
To go back to Flood he did offer his evidence, a photograph, unfortunately for Flood he used a photo of the "famous Upsidedown set. probably made for that well known 18th century piper Wiily Handstandon of Giggleswick."
im not going to attribute my source for this quote , but its unimpeachable.
Which is labeled " probably Northumbrian" but to the educated eye is probably , to put it mildly , not.


So here we have IMO a prime example as to why never to just rely on one source. Im not relying on one source for my claim (that it was indeed Willy handstandon of Giggleswick) and that they are not Northumbrian pipes , because if you look at the picture you can clearly why....... Im fact I heard it on good authority( ok i made it up ) that Willy Handstandon could also sing dance playing his pipes while dancing on the slack line, and do it blindfolded while escaping , houdini style from leg cuffs.
Methinks the evidence has not been critically examined and that data is being cherry picked . And the reason the only data chosen for the light of Examination is because its already known to be false.
Does invalid data invalidate a claim ? clearly yes. But does a claim , (later proven false with fresh information) based on data thought to be true at that time by the author, invalidate the researcher?if so then its lucky this is not an academic Forum....
Remember we are talking about an antique curiosity book where the researcher clearly had little to go on.

Ps Im not the danceing Uilleann piper... If im called to back up my claim that I can indeed dance while piping and singing .i will so so. But after the counter claiment has demonstrated he can not.(ok its not really clear what the claim is base on but granting that and claiming poetic license )
That should be good for a laugh .
But of course he could fall about all over the place while tripping over his feet intentionally.... While secretly being able to dance and sing while piping ..... Or perhaps hes just shy and the minute the record button is pressed he can not perform anymore...whatever (maybe he conducted a test and got a hundred pipers to try to dance and play )
so I dont think the claim can be substantiated but Im willing to examin the evidence.
However I assume the claiments good faith and will take it on face value. find a researcher who discounts Flood that you might accept, I suggest that you look at the underpinnings of empirical science. Simply put, the lack of evidence doesn’t suggest that Flood is WRONG, b


Like I said in the session.org I was making enquiries , not because I wished to prove Flood of value, not because I wish to prove Flood of no value. Its merely a matter of curiosity and to see what evidence there is to support a claim that " Flood is total Fiction" which has been factually disproven already in the other thread .
__________________
Beginners Mind, Zen Mind, No Mind.

Last edited by tenthpiper; 03-08-2016 at 10:19 PM.
tenthpiper is offline  
Old 03-08-2016, 11:54 PM   #6
tenthpiper
Forum Silver Medal
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ireland / Spain
Posts: 490
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Aagh Ive no idea how that bit got in there!? This is a quote from an entirely different thread on an other forum written by someone else. I m sorry i missed that and i cant edit now.

<researcher who discounts Flood that you might accept, I suggest that you look at the underpinnings of empirical science. Simply put, the lack of evidence doesn’t suggest that Flood is WRONG, <<

Ignore that bit. Jeez it was 6.30 This morning here i guess i was half asleep.
__________________
Beginners Mind, Zen Mind, No Mind.

Last edited by tenthpiper; 03-08-2016 at 11:56 PM. Reason: Spelling on touch screen
tenthpiper is offline  
Old 03-09-2016, 12:37 AM   #7
Paul M Burke
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Waterford, Ireland.
Posts: 1,278
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondike Waldo View Post
It's a little enough fault, but I do find irksome in what should be taken as an academic discussion to have "your" repeatedly used rather than "you're" or "you are."
Haha,

But cant and can't are two totally different things.
I am not sure about the reflective pronoun either.
That style of sentence has always grated with me.

Enough!

Paul
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.
Paul M Burke is offline  
Old 03-09-2016, 03:22 AM   #8
Rob_Say
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 46
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
i wouldnt want to suggest your work is valueless because you are mistaken in one or more areas and it would seem churlish to do so.
Ad hominem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
It is quite possible to dance and play bellows pipes , if your good enough. The fact that you yourself cant does not mean its impossible.... However rare and extraordinary the dancing Uilleann piper might be , at least one exists!
You are confusing my clearly expressed critique of a statement with WHGF's appeal to a false authority to establish a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
Regarding St Aiden, ... Its simply an unproven assertion, as is your own , that at "best its wishfull thinking. " can you demonstrate that it was not? Both positions are not founded on evidence that is presented to us.
Again you are confusing my critique (an opinion) with WHGF's assertion of fact - challenging the questionner rather than the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
However Considering Irish was used as early as 600ad in the glosses its not such a great leap of faith to suggest that so was song, in the vernacular, a part of Monastry life.
Precisely; it is a leap of faith. Your response is also classified as a logical fallacy described as an 'appeal to nature'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
Looking at your post I notice other errors or questionable assumptions and information you state as fact. For example the peacock manuscript. Here Colin Ross states it was published in the first decade of the 19th c... Who is making a factual error here? We have another more specific date of 1805 else where.
I am very familiar with the Peacock book - Colin and I would both agree that there is no known specific publication date. It is generally accepted dates of publication are between 1798 and 1805 (based on the parties involved and the development of the new improved chanter). My statement " .. published in or around 1798 .. " does not contradict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
I also note he says " issued "around 1765, not published. Yes it could be synonymous, but that does not take into account that a number of hand written copys could have been circulated amongst friends decades earlier.
This is a case of special pleading and does not alter the original position. Peacock's book was well known in 1911 and held up as the earliest example of northumbrian pipe music. Earlier manuscripts were generally not known, recognised or acknowledged at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpipe View Post
I also might as well point out another error in your post for good measure, you say that there is a critical difference between some northumbrian pipes and other northumbrian pipes. But you clearly suggest they are both Northumbrian pipes.... So the catagory is clear and he is refering to the catagory of Northumbrian pipes. The fact that a specialist might sub catagorise is irrelvant.
The mis-categorisation is critical in explaining the factual inaccuracy in the statement: " .. the only difference between the Lowland and the Northumbrian pipes is one of size, the Northumbrian being the smaller."

Whichever way you choose to read the text, one of the following statements are true - and provide the illustration of the inaccuracy requested:
1) subject is 'old' Northumbrian pipes - the statement on size is false
2) subject is 'modern' Northumbrian pipes - the statement on only difference is false
3) subject is mixed - the statement on only difference is false

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpiper View Post
Which is labeled "probably Northumbrian" but to the educated eye is probably , to put it mildly , not.
I'm delighted that you choose to raise this. I did not call this image (page 192) out explicitly for two reasons:
  1. pastoral pipes in a similar style were made and played in Newcastle and Northumberland at that time (various examples by Reid)
  2. WHGF used 'probably' - an excellent qualification given what he knew at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpiper View Post
Methinks the evidence has not been critically examined and that data is being cherry picked . And the reason the only data chosen for the light of Examination is because its already known to be false.
The challenge was to highlight specific inaccuracies - this is the very definition of cherry picking. I also included specific critique of WHGFs presentation of opinions as fact. You are attempting to change your own question and ignoring the critical commentary that was explicitly called out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpiper View Post
But does a claim , (later proven false with fresh information) based on data thought to be true at that time by the author, invalidate the researcher? Remember we are talking about an antique curiosity book where the researcher clearly had little to go on.
As a curiousity - it is both useful and entertaining, and ranks slightly above many similar tracts from the same period. The issue arises when the 'Story of the Bagpipe' is used as a primary reference and presented as historical fact.

Unfortunately WHGF who was undoubtedly a clever, dedicated and interesting man with access to substantial sources does not provide us with high quality research material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpiper View Post
Ps Im not the danceing Uilleann piper... If im called to back up my claim that I can indeed dance while piping and singing .i will so so. But after the counter claiment has demonstrated he can not.
No claim was made - you are challenging the question rather than responding to it. WHGF made an appeal to false authority by stating that "we read that .... <random statement>". Without a reference we cannot judge the authority. Having read extensively in 19thC almanacs, table books and journals where many outlandish historical tales are told I choose to question the statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthpiper View Post
Simply put, the lack of evidence doesn’t suggest that Flood is WRONG,
Nor does it suggest that his opinions are right.

In questioning the current academic view of WHGF's work - the response is based on academic values of assessment. I do not deny the literary attraction of his stories; there are hypotheses in there that might well prove to be true. Given the prevalence of challengeable assertions however, an academic researcher must discount the work and move to other primary sources.

Rob

Last edited by Rob_Say; 03-09-2016 at 03:24 AM.
Rob_Say is offline  
Old 03-09-2016, 05:28 AM   #9
Matt Buckley
Forum Clasp
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Richmond, Vermont
Posts: 800
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

The session.org thread includes, among other things, a discussion regarding the banning of the pipes, or lack thereof, after Culloden. I've read Donaldson, Gibson, Cheape, Cannon, among others. What I confess to not knowing is whether there has been any serious recent scholarship refuting, in particular, Gibson's assertion that the Highland pipes were not banned? Can anyone help in this regard? Keith Sanger, do you have any words of wisdom in this regard?

Cheers.

Matt
__________________
Matt Buckley
Matt Buckley is offline  
Old 03-09-2016, 06:42 AM   #10
tenthpiper
Forum Silver Medal
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ireland / Spain
Posts: 490
Default Re: Grattan Flood - Histories / His Stories

Great response Rob, however i will answer your points

1 ad homini. Not at all, i said I Would not, and did not, Several times. reading the exact opposite of what I write and then critiqueing your contrary interpretation indicates a fertile and imaganative mind I grant you, but a completely unsubstantiated accusation .

2 :A) you ascribe a "claim to false authority "to floods statement, Where! If I read a book, Then state that I did so , this is not a claim to authority, just that I read a book .
He tells us what books he read and the conclusion he drew, so your critique falls seriously short of being supported by the facts , as you stuate he did not give his sources when he clearly did.

B) You also ascribe a knowledge to Flood that is directly contrary to the evidence he provided. <<:as flood would have known them<< where do you draw this conclusion from?


3, flood expressed an opinion,: must have. its not stated as if it were a fact, it which case he would presumably state; Did.
Definition of must.
""expressing an opinion about something that is logically very likely""

So actually you expressed an opinion on his opinion.
however unless you've read the entire bibliography ,then we dont actually know what he bases his opinion on. You are simply ascribing a meaning to a word that is incorrect , then critiquing your incorrect interpretation!

4 appeal to nature. Not at all, thats merely a query and one based on my research. Its framed as a question. Not a statement.

5, regarding the dates of publication, you have an educated opinion. And i accept that . But you then ascribe a meaning to a word that is not the only meaning. Are you saying that he did not issue hand written copies to his students? in which case there is no valid criticism.

6 you state as if it were a fact that peacocks work was well known in 1911.
This may be so. But you yourselves agree that there is no definite evidence to state exactly when it was published.
You in 2016 would have a great deal more access to resources id have thought but you cant pinpoint any specific date. So why then should Flood be expected to do better than you can do? Even assuming your interpretation of his words are correct , which is unlikely, but plausable

7 granted Flood was wrong, it is factually incorrect, but thats not relevant to my critique of your Statement which stated it was an equivocation error. But its not .
. Northumbrian pipes are a catagory to which all the sub catagories of northumbrian pipes are included by their very nature. i agree its not clear which subcategory , but this is your subcategorisation not his, he uses the catagory and not the subcategory.

8 you seem to be assuming that they are pastoral pipes , this is not clear .

9 Granted.
10 , i will return in a moment to this.

11 again your ignoring the copious referances that he gave in the bibliography so your critism is based on a factual error and is invalid.

However I commend you on your questioning.

12, that was a mistaken cut and paste as i explained from someone else but it raises a important point and we agree.

13 this is of the essence. In 10 you state that useing it as primary source is a mistake . Absolutely , couldnt agree more , but then you go on to say , you must look for other primary sources? So your contradicting yourself .....

A book like this could only be a primary source when researching the author , his environment, culture,and it might relate to the social conditions of the time. Etc Its valuable for that alone.

But when we are looking at the material he presents , rather than its context then its not even a secondary source . Unless there is evidence that he , himself translated the old Irish, Anglo Norman, actually touched and played the instruments , went to the museams etc. so at best IMO its tertiary source ....
A book by a man who read lots of books, that could , and frankly probably were themselves based on other books they in turn had read ..... Its not surprising that there are mistakes in such a potentially long line of transmission.

Anyhow, I enjoy the debate , but I will make one further point.
You dismiss his work as if it were from under graduate. implying that you are ina position of authority, That comes accross as an appeal to authority however subtle and indirect. If it were not, what possible value or motive might you have in that statement?

I really must get back to my pipes. Thanks for your input . You made a significant contribution . And it was good to "cross swords" Touche.
__________________
Beginners Mind, Zen Mind, No Mind.

Last edited by tenthpiper; 03-09-2016 at 06:46 AM. Reason: Guess :-)
tenthpiper is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Silver Sponsor

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 PM.