Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

August 19, 2003

IT'S TIME FOR GUN PARTISANS TO DUMP JOHN LOTT....I have been deeply remiss in not following up on the John Lott saga. Sorry. Luckily, Tim Lambert, as always, has been on the case.

Back in January we were all focused on the question of whether John Lott conducted an actual survey in 1997 (as he says he did) or whether he just made the whole thing up. I thought the fact patterns indicated that Lott was lying, but Tim, the acknowledged expert in Lott stalking, was more cautious. There was, after all, a guy in Minnesota — David Gross — who said he remembered being part of the survey.

At the time, Tim thought it unlikely that Lott had conspired with Gross, but a couple of months ago he changed his mind. It turns out that Gross is not just a gun owner, but has been the guiding force behind a bill to allow Minnesotans to carry guns in public:

For Gross, now in private law practice in a St. Louis Park, passage of the law has been somewhat of a crusade. He insists it has little to do with guns and everything to do with the Constitution. "Does my right to defend myself end at my front door? I don’t think so." The fight has cost Gross financially and professionally. He estimates that his battle has cost him $1 million in lost salary and benefits. He also lost the stature he had in the city attorney’s office.

As Tim says, "It seems way too much of a coincidence, not just that someone with this much of a motive should happen to have been surveyed, but that the only person to have come forward should be such a person."

The latest entries on Tim's blog are about Lott's miscoded data. Apparently Lott has tacitly admitted the coding errors and has corrected them on his website. However, he hasn't re-run his regressions with the corrected data, which would show that his own data offers no support for the more guns, less crime hypothesis.

It's one thing that Lott is still revered by the NRA, but why does the mainstream media still give him the time of day? He's rather plainly a liar, and such an obvious one that it's hardly a partisan attack to say so.

And why haven't Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds been following this? The Bellesiles defenders eventually faced up to the mountain of evidence against him and admitted that his book was bogus. When will the gun partisans finally do the same with Lott?

Posted by Kevin Drum at August 19, 2003 11:06 AM | TrackBack


Comments

The press - because they're 'fair and balanced', which means that they quote one person from each side.

As for Glenn, the man embraced hackdom a long time ago.

Posted by: Barry at August 19, 2003 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

For me, the Mary Rosh episode was enough to completely discredit him, and his work as well.

A scholarly article doesn't just speak for itself-- it carries with it the presumption that that its author is honest, that he has conducted his research in a spirit of sincere inquiry.

When Lott showed that he was more than willing to blatantly lie to support his hypotheses, that presumption fell to pieces. From then on, all of his scholarly work was tainted. Those who say "sure the guy's a liar, but his results are valid" are engaging in wishful thinking.

Posted by: JakeV at August 19, 2003 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Well Damn Kevin!

If you're going to take the position that the mainstream media should quit paying attention to politicians who are proven liars, just who in Hell are they going to cover? If this was to become the standard for coverage I doubt you could ascertain from Big Media that we even had a government at all.

Posted by: Ratbane at August 19, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Uhh, John Lott is not a politician. He is supposed to be a researcher. Though he has yet to show he can overcome his own biases while doing research.

Posted by: Rob at August 19, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, have you sent this info to Glenn?

I'm with JakeV, the Mary Rosh episode sealed his fate in my book

Posted by: Texan at August 19, 2003 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

I skimmed through some of Lambert's material on Lott's surveys regarding defensive uses of firearms a while ago. Given the small number of people surveyed (slightly in excess of a couple of thousand, if memory serves), and the much smaller number who responded that they had made use of firearms in defending themselves (in the low single digits, I believe), I was amazed that he thought he could extrapolate the results to the entire population.

Posted by: raj at August 19, 2003 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if they dump Lott for being a lying partisan hack, then they'll be forced to dump all the other lying partisan hacks, and there would just be no end to it. If they really "cleaned house" who would be left at the end of the day?

Posted by: Hackenkaus at August 19, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

The Lott v. Belsailles thing shows just how bogus the "research" is coming out of right-wing think tanks. Belsailles was, quite rightly, removed from his academic post and stripped of a major award when it was shown that he had falsified his research. "True" research requires peer review and the ability to reproduce experimental results. On the other hand, there's no peer-review involved in the papers coming out of right-wing think tanks. The "research" starts out with an already determined policy and then they generate fudged data and half-truths to justify it. That's why John Lott is still a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Posted by: "Fair and Balanced" Dave at August 19, 2003 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

I was pissed about the Bellesiles thing for years before he was removed. So have a little patience on getting rid of Lott. It is always easier to see how wrong someone is when they are wrong AND they disagree with you. :)

Anyway, does this mean that we don't have any good sources on either side for historical gun data? How ridiculous is that.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 19, 2003 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

And when I go there, they'll say "why isn't Kevin covering [insert issue here], hmmmm?"

Posted by: squiddy at August 19, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Being from MN I've had my fill of Lott and the people who cite his 'truths'.

Sample (paraphrased) letter to the editor:

"If a church sues to be able to forbid guns in its sanctuary, then criminals will focus their attacks there. After all, that is where the money and un-armed people will be."

How stupid is that? Guns were forbidden in Churches before the law, and I didn't notice any rash of Church holdups on Sunday morning.

Posted by: Tripp at August 19, 2003 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting story here in CO last week. There's a guy in CO Springs (think military, religious, conservative community, home of Focus on the Family, the Air Force Academy and a large army base) who apparently routinely just carries around a shotgun in public. Not concealed, just out in the open. He says he needs it for protection. Well, he took his shotgun to a couple of city council meetings and the people down there just freaked out, and quickly passed a rule that would prevent the carrying of open and visible weapons. Look at that rule carefully. It only addressed weapons carried out in the open, and does not prohibit carrying concealed weapons. In fact, the council has expressly made it clear that they will not attempt to stop people from carrying concealed weapons.

Now let me get this straight. The root of the concealed weapon argument is that it will decrease crime because criminals will be afraid to commit a crime against a person that may be armed. However, if this is true, doesn't it seem likely that the reduction of crime would be even greater if a person carried a weapon out in the open, so that a criminal wouldn't even have to wonder if that person was armed? If so, then why are you allowing the concealed weapon, but banning the visible one? Seems totally backwards. The council claimed that having a guy with an open shotgun in the audience was intimidating to people and created fear. However, if we're to believe the gun control advocates, doesn;t having a guy with an open weapon actually make that room the safest place in town? And if you're just worried about the guy with the gun, does it really seem anymore dangerous that he's got it out in the open than if he had it tucked in his jacket? When he's got it out, at least you know to keep an eye on him.

Gun-nuts are a weird bunch.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh at August 19, 2003 01:06 PM | PERMALINK

And if you're just worried about the guy with the gun, does it really seem anymore dangerous that he's got it out in the open than if he had it tucked in his jacket?

An open weapon is more intimidating than the possibility that a person has a concealed weapon. Its also more threatening. If someone comes up to you with an openly brandished weapon, its intimidating. If they merely might be concealing one, well, you just don't attack them and find out.

There is a certain degree of perceived implicit threat in open carry.

Posted by: cmdicely at August 19, 2003 01:31 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't the whole point to be more intimidating to the bad guys? And I thought guns weren't threatening, people were threatening (to paraphrase a little).

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh at August 19, 2003 01:49 PM | PERMALINK

Citizen: "I'm against that zoning iniative, coucilmember. What do you think about it?"

Councilmember: "I think what that guy with the shotgun thinks."

Citizen: "What is that exactly?"

Councilmember: "I don't know, but that's what I think."

Posted by: QrazyQat at August 19, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINK

Godd*^#it Kevin,

I was/am a full-fledged Bellesiles basher and Lott enthusiast. And now you have me checking whether or not I've been hoodwinked by Lott for the last couple of years????? $#@^&%*#

That's why I come here to learn. Thanks for the post. *off to do Lott research*

CrazyQat-*LOL*

Posted by: spc67 at August 19, 2003 02:06 PM | PERMALINK

"When will the gun partisans finally do the same with Lott?"

What on earth makes you think they EVER will?

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at August 19, 2003 06:12 PM | PERMALINK

"When will the gun partisans finally do the same with Lott?"

Duh, when you pry him from our cold, dead, bookshelves.

Posted by: some random person at August 19, 2003 08:28 PM | PERMALINK

I lost some clusters on my hard drive last week [this much is true], and there went my data showing right-wingers will jettison fabulist John Lott, in the wake of Bellesiles and Jayson Blair.

Oh well, I can always just make stuff up instead.

Posted by: Andrew lazarus at August 19, 2003 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I'm sure he has re-run the regressions on the corrected data. He's just not admitting what the results were.

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 20, 2003 02:51 AM | PERMALINK

Comparisons of Bellesiles to Lott are crap

The Left has been howling for Lott's blood ever since the Left's hopes were dashed about Bellesiles . The Left was so hoping that Bellesiles would prove to be the long awaited messiah of gun-control and destroy the NRA heathens. The attempt to salve the hurt feelings of the Left, by claiming Lott is every bit as dishonest and every bit as unconditionally supported as Bellesiles was, is ludicrous.

The silence from the high profile promoters and believers of Bellesiles since Bellesiles defrocking has been deafening. Few and notable have been those who retracted favorable reviews of Bellesiles book, Arming America, once the truth was impossible to deny any longer. But what has Gary Wills said? Carl T. Bogus? Michael Zuckerman? Sarah Brady? Or Judge Reinhardt? At best only crickets chirping.

I still get a kick seeing recently published books which stll rely on Bellesiles discredited scholarship, such as Robert J. Spitzer's book, The Right to Bear Arms. Or how Judge Reinhardt used Bellesiles in his anti-2nd Amendment court ruling.

I think much more withering criticism has turned the way of such gun-control "researchers" as Wintemute and Kellerman than any accusation leveled at Lott.

The fact is anti-gun advocacy groups as exemplified by the Violence Policy Center are filled with liars, crooks and thieves. I had my own personal taste of that.

On the VPC website you can read and buy some of the reports the VPC produce. One in particular caught my eye entitled, One Shot One Kill (the VPC screed against "sniper rifles"). I thought the simple cover art looked awfully familiar. It was.

Turns out VPC had ripped off the copywrited cover art from a different book published by Desert Publications. I talked to Desert Publications myself to be certain of who owned what, and to tell them what VPC had stolen. Since then I see VPC has replaced the artwork I first saw with something different. Guess the VPC got caught that time.

And I always wondered about the finances of the unlamented Million Mom March. I read how they had received millions in donations from charitable foundations and some misguided rich donors. And how the MMM was headquarted illegally rent free, on the taxpayers dime, at a San Francisco area hospital. And yet despite all that the MMM went bankrupt and was absorbed by Handgun Control Inc. I wonder where all the money went? I bet somebody in the MMM made themselves pretty fat on all that money.

Posted by: Brad at August 20, 2003 02:52 AM | PERMALINK

See, but Brad, the problem with Lott is, every time we read a post like yours, we have to wondeer if "Brad" is just John Lott posting under a pseudonym . . .

Posted by: rea at August 20, 2003 05:18 AM | PERMALINK

Brad, you didn't actually address any of the criticisms of Lott. Even if all your claims about the VPC were correct, that doesn't prove that Lott is reliable or honest.

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 20, 2003 06:23 AM | PERMALINK

Wouldn't it be interesting if Brad were posting under Mary Rosh?

Posted by: Figaro at August 20, 2003 08:42 AM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why we have to rely on Lott for the re-regressions. Can't someone else do it with the corrected data he has provided? Or is it not that simple?

Kevin, it took 3 years for Bellesiles to be dealt with. Give conservatives a couple of months, ok. :)

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at August 20, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

Except that Brad wasn't addressing whether Lott is reliable or honest, Tim. Brad was addressing whether comparisons between Lott and Bellisiles are apt. Given that three years passed before Bellisiles saw any discipline for his academic misconduct, and we're still waiting for folks like Wills, Bogus, and Zuckerman to retract the fawning statements they made vis-a-vis Arming America... well. Yours and Kevin's indignation seems not only premature, but has a whiff of sanctimony.

For my part, I'm persuaded by the body of data available that Lott has some fairly serious credibility problems. This doesn't mean, as some have suggested, that his ouvre should be dismissed out of hand; it does mean that it should be carefully verified before it becomes the basis of any policy arguments. But I make no apologies for affording him the benefit of the doubt for so long; not when, as Reynolds points out, his critics have so frequently been ideologues. You, yourself, Tim, are hardly a dispassionate and non-partisan actor, here -- you've been grinding your own personal axe since long before vanishing surveys or Mary Rosh or coding errors.

Furthermore, as we go crucifying Lott, let us not neglect the larger context: Aryes and Donohoe's research appears to demonstrate that liberalized concealed weapons laws have no significant effect on crime rates in either direction. Thus, while Aryes-Donohoe may be fatal to Lott's hypothesis, it is equally fatal to the hysterical prognostications of the likes of VPC and Handgun Control, who as a matter of course claim that any liberalization of concealed weapons laws will result in bloody mayhem.

Posted by: Brett at August 20, 2003 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

If folks want to see where Brett is coming from, they should read his previous post on this matter.

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 20, 2003 07:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm... John Lott's raw data can be downloaded by anyone from:

www.johnlott.org

No doubt, this is part of Lott's diabolical scheme to hide his misrepresentations and obfuscations in plain sight! He obviously knows that his coding and other errors will never be detected by anybody!

Let's see how and where his critics post their raw data:

Ayers and Donahue?
Tim Lambert? Oh wait, he doesn't produce any raw data, he just dissects it.

And how about good people like Kellerman? Who have refused to release their raw data to public review despite its being produced as a result of a grant of public money?

No doubt, Ayers and Donahue have no axe to grind in this debate, even though the mask sometimes slips such as in their choice statements:

As an earlier president of the Connecticut Chiefs of Police Association once stated, “We are concerned about the increasing availability of handguns and the ease with which a person can get a pistol permit. [A] permit is dangerous in the hands of a neophyte who goes to a bar and shows off his phallic symbol to the boys.”

or....

In a world where NRA members have bumper stickers stating “Keep Honking, I’m Reloading,” the costs of intimidation of law-abiding citizens may become intolerable.

Both available from:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/final%20document.pdf

Posted by: Kevin P. at August 20, 2003 07:25 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin P, Ayres and Donohue's data is available from the very website that you cited. In fact, the link is right next to the link to the paper you cited. The data for my analysis of Lott's 2002 survey is available here. Kellermann's data has been available from the ICPSR since 1997. Maybe pro-gunners should retire that canard one of these days?

Lott's data is indeed available. That's how we know that there were coding errors and that he fixed them without actually admitting that he made the errors in the first place.

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 20, 2003 08:56 PM | PERMALINK

Tim Lambert

So Kellerman finally made his data available in 1997. How nice. Wasn't the infamous '43 times more likely' study originally published in 1986? That's only a delay of eleven years. Now that's integrity, eh? Lott can only dream of matching such a pure ethical standard.

Posted by: Brad at August 20, 2003 09:53 PM | PERMALINK

The Kellermann data is for a study published in 1993. All the relevant data for the 1986 study is in that paper. Lott's data for the survey he claims to have conducted in 1997 is still missing.

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 20, 2003 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, so it was only four years instead of eleven.
Although, I imagine it could have been eleven years if it weren't for all the Congressional scutiny that Kellerman's behavior attracted.

Posted by: Brad at August 21, 2003 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Instapundit has linked to a piece by John Lott refuting Ayers and Donahue at:

http://www.johnrlott.com
(see the entry for 8/20/03)

No matter who you believe, read the whole thing.

I will have to admit that I understand, only at a very high level, what these guys are saying about each other's work. I have a graduate degree in Engineering and use statistics on a daily basis, but as far as verifying their work, I suspect that I would probably have to go back to school and take a year's worth of classes to be able to vet this stuff one way or the other.

Posted by: Kevin P. at August 21, 2003 07:28 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by Tim Lambert at August 20, 2003 07:20 PM:
If folks want to see where Brett is coming from, they should read his previous post on this matter.

Good Lord, Brett is actually coming from some place! This pearl of wisdom comes from you, of all people!

In that piece, Brett calls you an anti-gun zealot. Perhaps "academic zealot" would temper that rather harsh phrase, but do you deny it? Are you not in fact anti-gun? Have you ever, ever approved, in any respect, of the private ownership of firearms for safety and security?

None of the above disqualifies you in any way from commenting on the debate. In fact, I freely admit that I am a pro-gun partisan and that I welcome your participation, if only because it sharpens my arguments. The gun control movement in the US is in collapse. It is sad that the best that they can muster is a Computer Science professor in Australia, but until they can do better, we welcome you.

But quit this "see where he is coming from" nonsense. Everyone comes from somewhere. Accept it and move on.

Posted by: Kevin P. at August 21, 2003 07:36 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin P, Lott does not refute A & D at all. He finally admits to making hundreds of coding errors, and is once more completely evasive on the question of the significance of the errors. More on my blog

And, I am not anti-gun. Perhaps you would care to explain why you seem to believe that I am?

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 21, 2003 08:15 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by Tim Lambert at August 21, 2003 08:15 AM
Kevin P, Lott does not refute A & D at all. He finally admits to making hundreds of coding errors, and is once more completely evasive on the question of the significance of the errors. More on my blog

I read your blog as well as John Lott's site, and this is his side of the story:
As to the claim that "correcting his errors did eliminate his finding." The data used in the Plassmann and Whitley paper can be downloaded at www.johnlott.org and one can readily see from the corrected tables and figures that this statement is false.

It seems to me that he says that he has refuted A & D. Now, as I have said before, I lack the skill and the tools to be a referee between these two parties, but I am unwilling to simply accept your blanket statement that he has lied.

Posted by Tim Lambert at August 21, 2003 08:15 AM
And, I am not anti-gun. Perhaps you would care to explain why you seem to believe that I am?

Speaking of evasions, I noticed that you evaded my question. Let me repeat it: Have you ever, ever approved, in any respect, of the private ownership of firearms for safety and security? You have written hundreds of anti-gun articles and posts over the years, and I have read tens of them. I cannot recall a single one in which you came close to admitting that the private ownership of guns was beneficial to an individual or to society. If you are not anti-gun, then Sarah Brady respects gun rights.

It is OK to admit that you are anti-gun. It is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, you have plenty of company.

Posted by: Kevin P. at August 21, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin P, Lott added that paragraph after I wrote my posting (he probably wrote it in response to my posting.)

The answer to your question is "yes". I reject your characterization of my postings as "anti-gun".

Posted by: Tim Lambert at August 21, 2003 07:08 PM | PERMALINK

Two Words..."statistically significant".

Bellesiles work was fatally struck. Lotts just needs some adjustment. It has not been destroyed yet.

Your eagerness to reach that conclusion makes you over look the differences. Isn't that just what you are charging the other side with?

Posted by: Balazo at April 28, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINK

Lott's 'study'.

Aside from John Lott also being Mary Rosh - and admitting it - which should be an issue about his integrity. Lott's only identified participant in his study is David Ross of Minnesota.

But we have a problem here too.
“Minnesotan David Gross, who helped create this law, has a conceal-carry permit from Florida. Mr. Gross has admitted that he pointed his gun at a neighbor he considered troublesome - which is a felony. Mr. Gross told the Star Tribune, "It worked - they moved." Star Tribune, May 31, 2003

Mr. Ross has also admitted some other wrong doings. In examining Minnesota Law we find that Mr. Ross has comitted a number of serious issues.

The comparison might be asking Frank Nitti if Al Capone was guilty.

Posted by: MJ Berglin at May 10, 2004 08:14 AM | PERMALINK

online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos

Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 12:05 PM | PERMALINK


Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

free web cam free live web cam free chat with web cam free sex web cam adult free web cam free nude web cam free girl web cam free web cam site free porn web cam free gay web cam free xxx web cam free teen web cam free web cam chat room free amateur web cam free web cam pic free adult live web cam free adult web cam chat live sex web cam free free personal web cam free live nude web cam free live girl web cam free live web cam chat web cam live free personal cam free view web free web cam picture free sex chat web cam free online web cam cam free viewing web free web cam software free lesbian web cam free web cam community cam free watch web free web cam video free live web cam site free web cam host free sexy web cam free web cam hosting free live web cam porn free naked web cam free web cam of woman free home web cam free live xxx web cam free adult web cam site free nude web cam chat cam free totally web cam free movie web cam chat free teen web free web cam chat site free asian web cam free black web cam voyeur web cam free free streaming web cam free web cam pussy free live teen web cam free web cam show free gay live web cam free private web cam cam free web yahoo web cam free ware cam chatting free web cam free gallery web free teen web cam pic free nude teen web cam free live web cam show free male web cam cam free live web woman cam free now web cam free membership no web cam college free web free live web cam amateur access cam free web cam dating free web free shemale web cam free sex web cam site cam free sample web cam download free web cam free room web cam free no registration web free adult web cam community free gay web cam chat cam chat free girl web cam free girl girl live web free hidden web cam free naked woman web cam free erotic web cam free hardcore web cam cam code display free web cam free mature web free web cam broadcast cam free preview web cam chat free online web free college girl web cam free live lesbian web cam cam free skin web free gay male web cam cam free man web free porn web cam chat cam free service web free nude woman web cam free web cam sex show free sex web cam video free adult sex web cam free online sex web cam free teen sex web cam free gay sex web cam free web cam sex amateur free private web cam sex home web cam sex free free web cam cyber sex free couple sex web cam free lesbian sex web cam free hardcore sex web cam cam free sex watch web free sex web cam pic cam free movie sex web cam free free sex web cam free sex view web free sex web cam sample free black sex web cam free nude web cam pic free amateur nude web cam cam free nude sexy web cam free non nude web free nude web cam site free adult nude web cam free nude man web cam free nude web cam show cam free live nude web woman free nude beach web cam free nude gay web cam free nude web cam at home free nude web cam picture cam free nude preview web cam free nude video web cam free girl hot web free web cam teen girl cam free girl pic web cam free girl online web black cam free girl web cam free girl watch web free adult girl web cam asian cam free girl web cam free girl video web cam free girl picture web cam free girl web young cam cam free free girl web web cam free girl totally web cam free girl show web cam free gallery girl web cam free girl real web cam free free girl web cam free live online web free live streaming web cam cam free live web free home live web cam cam free live secretfriends-com web cam free live totally web free live sexy web cam free live naked web cam cam free live watch web cam free live view web cam cam free free live web web cam feed free live web cam free live private web cam free live naked web woman cam community free live web amsterdam cam free live web cam free host live web free live pussy web cam asian cam free live web hot live free web cam cam free live now web cam female free live web cam free free live web amateur cam free live web xxx animal cam free live web cam free hidden live web cam free live preview web free live voyeur web cam cam ebony free live web cam free live password web cam free live shemale web free xxx web cam chat free web cam video chat cam chat free lesbian web cam chat free private web cam chat free program web cam chat free web cam chat free naked web cam chat free naughty web cam chat free web yahoo cam chat free totally web cam chat free software web cam chat free kid web cam chat free line web free amateur web cam and chat cam chat free free web cam chat college free web cam chat community free web cam chat free msn web best cam chat free web free porn web cam site free teen porn web cam cam com free porn web cam free online porn web free adult porn web cam cam free porn video web cam free porn web xxx free amateur porn web cam free gay porn web cam cam free porn watch web free xxx web cam site cam free teen web xxx free adult xxx web cam free amateur xxx web cam free teen web cam gallery cam free teen video web free gay teen web cam cam free site teen web cam free teen web young free amateur teen web cam free teen web cam picture free amateur web cam site free amateur adult web cam free gay amateur web cam free amateur web cam pic free sex cam free live sex cam free sex cam chat free live sex cam chat free sex video cam free sex spy cam free online sex cam free amateur sex cam free hidden sex cam free teen sex cam free adult sex cam free live sex chat web cam free gay sex cam cam com free live sex web free home sex cam free live teen sex cam free sex voyeur cam free lesbian sex cam free asian sex cam com cam free sex free private sex cam free sex cam site free nude sex cam free live sex video cam free sex cam sample free live web cam sex show adult cam chat free sex web free sex cam show anal cam free live sex sex cam chat free room sex web free live sex cam feed cam free home private sex web cam free movie sex cam free lesbian live sex amsterdam cam free sex cam free sex watch cam free livefeeds sex cam free latina sex free live sex cam show adult cam free live sex free hardcore sex cam amsterdam cam free live sex free couple sex cam free hot sex cam cam free membership no sex free porn sex cam free sex spy cam pic cam free gratis sex cam free live sex site web free streaming sex cam live sex voyeur cam for free girl web cam live web cam girl college girl web cam teen girl web cam hot web cam girl web cam girl pic young web cam girl cam chat girl web web cam girl picture black cam girl web asian girl web cam girl home web cam cam girl web yahoo girl personal web cam real web cam girl cam girl online web school girl web cam cam chat girl live web cam girl high school web web cam girl gallery cam girl video web cam girl hot live web cam girl little web cam college girl live web cam girl in web cam cam girl web cam girl horny web teenage girl web cam cam caught girl web web cam girl archive cam girl naughty web japanese girl web cam girl private web cam cam girl msn web cam girl photo web arab cam girl web cam cute girl web cam fat girl web cam girl indian web cam flashing girl web girl web cam site cam girl stripping web cam girl goth web cam girl watch web cam free girl streamate web cam dorm girl web cam girl girl web cam girl gratis web girl web cam adult cam flexing girl web cam free girl girl web cam girl gone web wild collage girl web cam cam girl korean web cam free girl view web alone cam girl home web cam canadian girl web cam girl russian web cam girl single web top 100 girl web cam teen girl web cam pic cam girl voyeur web cam girl home live web cam girl latina web cam french girl web cam girl secret web action cam girl web australian cam girl web cam girl strip web cam free girl preview web cam free girl horny web cam girl stripping teen web cam girl pic web young cam girl preteen web cam girl talk web cam girl index web cam girl kissing web cam girl local web cam girl teen web young web cam sex live sex web cam web cam sex chat teen sex web cam sex gratis web cam amateur web cam sex gay sex web cam live web cam sex chat adult sex web cam adult cam direct sex web web cam sex chat room video sex web cam sex web cam site home sex web cam web cam sex show cam online sex web live sex show web cam web cam cyber sex asian sex web cam web cam sex pic lesbian web cam sex hot sex web cam couple sex web cam cam college sex web cam sex web yahoo cam hidden sex web amsterdam cam sex web black sex web cam web cam sex com cam membership no sex web live adult sex web cam web cam sex gratuit cam pal pay sex web cam friend secret sex web adult cam chat sex web free sex porn web cam oral sex web cam cam having people sex web cam dating sex web cam live secretefriends sex web xxx sex web cam cam msn sex web nude sex web cam cam sex watch web cam cam free sex web group sex web cam cam sample sex web sex voyeur web cam cam couple live sex web com cam sex web free nude sex web cam
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat

Posted by: Nick at July 26, 2004 01:08 PM | PERMALINK

7440 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 02:12 AM | PERMALINK

1484 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINK

6736 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter