Yes, AMD fanboys *are* idiots

We knew that already, but, my last blog attracted their attention again.

It’s interesting to see how they think… or well, don’t think. It seems that most of them can’t argue the points I make, so they go straight for the personal attacks. And the ones who do try to argue, generally still throw in plenty of personal attacks… And they are either not aware of the fact that they are completely clueless about the subject of CPU architectures… or they just try to bluff their way through, assuming that I don’t know enough to counter their arguments.

I’m not in the habit of shutting people up by not approving or modifying/deleting their posts, but you’ll have to forgive me for not entertaining posts that have no value whatsoever, and seem to be solely an AMD fanboy needing to vent his frustration.

What’s even more bizarre… I already knew that people tend to not comment on a blog directly (it is ‘safer’ on a forum where you already know that people are as biased and misinformed as yourself). However, they just stoop to lies, and pretend to know me and my ‘history’.

For example, take this post: “…and no ads on his blog.. but for me atleast there was an ad for an I7 gaming system…”

What? Clearly this is an ad-free blog. And I have not spoken about Core I7 gaming systems at all on my blog (at most I may have casually mentioned Core I7 here and there). What an obvious and pathetic lie.

Or here: “Some idiot does not know the difference between throughoutput (sic) and speed”.

If anyone doesn’t know the difference, it is John Fruehe himself, as there is a slide about 50% more throughput from AMD, yet Fruehe himself clearly stated 50% performance in his blog. I quoted Fruehe’s blog, which has no mention of throughput.

Or what about this one: “For those who don’t know he’s an intel shill who has been posting anti AMD rhetoric for years. He’s been discredited many times and I’m surprised he has the guts to continue showing up.”

Really? Intel shill? What nonsense, I hate all x86 equally. And I have been discredited? Really? Where and when was that? I suppose you don’t have to mention that… especially since it’s not true anyway. In fact, I berated Intel for spreading FUD about ARM, regarding the upcoming Windows 8 with ARM support. I don’t discriminate between Intel and AMD, or any company for that matter.

While I’m at it… apparently they seem to think that Fruehe posts on forums because he cares, and wants to help people. Yes, ‘help’ them to buy AMD products, no matter what it takes. Some people even seem to be okay with Fruehe using bold lies… I wonder how you could ever be okay with that. Sure, it happens, and eventually the truth will come out, but that doesn’t make it okay.

Oh, and what to think about this little gem:  “That guy is an idiot. He actually says:
“single-threaded performance (in other words: IPC)””

Yes I said that, but what’s wrong with that? You’re right, nothing. IPC is a measure of the performance of a single core. And since it was already known at this point that Bulldozer would operate in more or less the same frequency range as Phenom and Core-based CPUs, any improvement in single-threaded performance was going to come from IPC. But well, I guess that makes *me* the idiot, right?

What a bunch of sick people. So irrational, so bitter. So utterly unable to argue the points, since they both go completely over their heads, and are far too solid to be disproven. It’s funny how the internet works. People just go to forums with other people who think like them (you will often see the same article being discussed in completely different ways on different forums… Each forum has its own bias, its own level of discussion etc.). It reinforces their misguided ideas and boosts their egos. There is no longer any control or reality in their world.

Update: Apparently my blog is not entirely ad-free anymore. If you are not logged in as a WordPress user, you may see one small advertisement at the bottom of a blog post. I don’t think that was here before, it might be because of the popularity of the blog. However, these ads are automatically provided by (who hosts this blog, obviously). I have no control over these ads, nor do I receive any revenue for them. It is just a way for to pay for the hosting, which they provide for free to their users.

See more on this page:


To support the service we may occasionally show ads on your blog, however we do this very rarely. You can remove ads from your blog for a low yearly fee. We also have an option for high traffic blogs to show their own ads.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Yes, AMD fanboys *are* idiots

  1. JDWII says:

    “apparently they seem to think that Fruehe posts on forums because he cares, and wants to help people. Yes, ‘help’ them to buy AMD products, no matter what it takes. Some people even seem to be okay with Fruehe using bold lies…”

    Again lie when the hell did he lie you are trying to get attention that’s the whole reason you do this with bull shit titles. I just can’t believe you keep posting this nonsense JF-AMD said he does to things on the internet tech sites HELPING PEOPLE understand the bulldozer design or looking at bike sites?

    This is funny “There is no longer any control or reality in their world.”

    True because every time you say something it makes me wish their was no such thing as freedom of speech.

    You are such a bully on the internet and you are always the first person to put someone down. i would have never posted on your blog if it was not because of you being a bully you had no right to say this “Obviously’, yes… whatever makes you sleep at night, right?”

    • k1net1cs says:

      What you don’t get, JDWII, is that you’re proving Scali’s points by yourself.

      “It seems that most of them can’t argue the points I make, so they go straight for the personal attacks.”

      And if you think this blog post is one of Scali’s personal attacks to you, then you’ve actually admitted yourself as the very ‘AMD fanboys’ Scali was talking about.

      “Silence is golden.”, they say, and it’s best for you to adhere to this suggestion for whatever pride is left in you.
      Otherwise, “Duct tape is silver.”.

    • Scali says:

      The very first line in the very first comment from you is “You dumb ass”.
      How is that not a personal attack?
      I may have called John Fruehe a liar… but unless you are John Fruehe, there is no way you can see it as a personal attack. Aside from that, I have given a number of reasons why I think he’s lying, so calling him a liar is not so much a personal attack as it is an observation of his behaviour.

    • Scali says:

      As I said, Fruehe has spread quite a bit of nonsense, such as how K7/K8/K10 really are only 1.5 ALU/AGU (which he said here:… or how they cannot do 2 128-bit SIMD operations per core at the same time, when in reality they can.
      Guys like you don’t really understand CPU architectures and software optimization. You just repeat whatever you heard from people you think are credible.
      Guess what? Fruehe is not credible.
      I’ve had a few K7 systems myself back in the day, and I’ve optimized plenty of code for them. The notion that it’s 1.5 ALU/AGU is ridiculous, I have plenty of code to prove otherwise. You could just read Agner Fog’s docs to see why Fruehe is wrong, or write and time your own code, like I did.

    • Scali says:

      Turns out that JF-AMD wasn’t just trying to help people understand Bulldozer, was he?
      I mean, what JF-AMD ‘explained’ about Bulldozer, and what is on sale today… not the same thing!
      Which I tried to warn people about for more than a year now. In vain mostly, which is sad.

      • Diceman says:

        JF-AMD was an idiot spreading misinformation from the start, you have to worry when a company you once respected lets a goon go about spreading such bs right before the launch, and then have to give people cash backs because the performance isn’t worth the price.

  2. Tom Hawk says:

    Well Scali, how long have you worked for Intel? I notice that I’ve never seen you rage on them for their anti-competitive practices but anything that you can take, interpret or misconstrue to be a bad thing that AMD does, you’re all over it like white on rice. Why aren’t you laughing at Intel for claiming that their “human rights” have been violated? They say “We didn’t do any of that” while ALL of the OEMs are saying “Oh yes you did!”. Where is your anger and “consumer-protectionist” posts about that? Oh right, you have none because you work for Intel and are a shill for them. Before you even try one of your pathetic attacks from your mother’s basement, I am NOT an AMD fanboy. I do not love AMD and would be just as happy with a VIA CPU if I could get satisfactory performance out of them. I do however DESPISE Intel with a passion because of what they’ve done to hold back innovation and advancement all in the name of their greed (and it seems, yours too). We’re at least 3 CPU generations behind because of them and you’re here complaining about AMD? Dumbass.

    • Scali says:

      While I don’t approve of Intel’s business practices, Intel didn’t exactly get away with it. What more do I need to add to that? They already got sued, and it’s been discussed over and over again.
      Also, Intel’s business practices don’t hurt the end-user. Giving OEMs volume discounts just means cheaper PCs for the end-user.

      Please, try to think a *bit* less one-dimensional. Just because someone criticizes company A doesn’t mean he’s working for company B. Ever heard of the term ‘false dilemma’?

      • Intel’s anti competitive business practices didn’t hurt consumers? really?
        it was so bad AMD couldn’t GIVE away their CPU’s (resulting in even cheaper systems) because the OEM would loss their ‘discount’.

        and Intel didn’t actually give discounts. they gave EVERYONE ‘a discount’, also know as the normal price.
        they just called it a discount just so they could threaten to take it away if you didn’t do exactly what they said.

        also, you claim AMD fans are idiots… and accuse them of name calling?
        and you don’t see the disconnect there?

      • Scali says:

        Lower prices don’t hurt consumers.
        Not all OEMs had deals with Intel anyway, so your logic is flawed: there were plenty of OEMs who offered systems with AMD CPUs.
        There were just 2 problems with those AMD systems:
        1) AMD’s production could not keep up with the demand, so people still had to buy Intel systems when AMD was not available.
        2) AMD could not keep prices low enough (partly because of the supply issues, partly because Intel priced their systems really low).

        Either way, the consumer got cheap systems from Intel, so it didn’t hurt them.

    • k1net1cs says:

      Scali actually had posted something that berated Intel, regarding the FUD on ARM.

      …not too long ago, and can be found easily by typing ‘Intel’ on the search box.

      Salt your own feet, Tom; you might need it when you put them on your mouth.

      • Scali says:

        Ah yes, forgot about that post already… probably because there weren’t any Intel fanboys with angry posts on it. But yes, it’s very similar: Intel trying to mislead consumers into not buying ARM-based hardware.
        Here is another post, where I’m critical of Intel and x86 in general:

        So as you see, I have the same concerns about lack of progress in the x86 world… I just look beyond AMD for a solution and see ARM on the horizon.

    • Diceman says:

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was AMD that held back advancement by developing x64 around the x86 architecture instead of going for a clean break.

    • Scali says:

      (WordPress saw this post as spam, didn’t see it earlier).
      What’s your point? You realize that this proves that Fruehe is a liar, don’t you?
      If Fruehe was right about ‘1.5 AGU and 1.5 ALU’, then the whole debate would be off by default, since a 2+2 architecture would always be better.
      But it’s not, it’s 3+3.
      Then the debate mostly becomes: Is it ‘a lot more than 17%’ faster?

      And well, David Kanter is not the right guy to ask about any performance estimates, as we recall from his ‘analysis’ of PhysX:
      With his ‘estimates’ of SSE optimizations, no doubt he could also ‘estimate’ Bulldozer to become a really REALLY fast CPU.

      • Diceman says:

        its really too bad that xtremesystem are full of idiots, terrace215 has been proven right on all accounts making his product manager or whatever contact seem completely legit now.

  3. Bonzai says:

    Bulldozer is September. Make or break! I wonder if it will get pushed back again. I had Thunderbird, AMD64 back in the days. Then went Q6600 then i7. Seemed logical, eh?

    Of course, a side note. AMD does seem to be making a big of progression with video cards. Nvidia, I think, needs to get a bit more serious. Not to say that they are not taking things seriously in their business, I just think they are putting alot of focus in phones (Tegrathingers) as of late and GPU’s are taking a bit of a backseat. Then again, maybe they don’t feel the need to push out faster than AMD.

    Ah well. At this rate, it doesn’t matter. No goddamn good games out! Here is hoping Old Republic, Battlefield 3, and Guild Wars 2 become REAL winners. *crosses fingers and toes*

    As always Scali, fun blogs to read.

    • Scali says:

      I don’t see it that way with GPUs.
      AMD has been evolving the same basic architecture since the Radeon 3000 series, more or less. They have run into a wall a few times already (3000 series could not run OpenCL/DirectCompute at all, 4000 can, but very poorly, so 5000 series needed an overhauled shared memory approach… Their 5-way VLIW became too inefficient, so they had to step it down to 4-way VLIW… And then there’s tessellation…). Currently they are ‘good enough’ for gaming, but that’s about it, and AMD knows it (as we found out here:

      nVidia on the other hand has been pushing GPU technology forward. OpenCL and DirectCompute exist mainly because of nVidia’s groundwork with the GeForce 8800. And Fermi is a proper DX11 architecture that not only performs well in ‘legacy’ DX9/DX10 scenarios, but also has excellent tessellation and DirectCompute/OpenCL performance. Above that, their GPGPU functionality is much more advanced, supporting full C++, ECC memory etc, which is great for HPC scenarios.

      AMD now needs to redesign their GPU from scratch, to get where nVidia already is. The Radeon 7000 series will be an interesting inflection point: can they get it right the first time, and continue to be competitive in legacy graphics performance, while getting on par with the new DX11 features and GPGPU, or beyond? Or will AMD fail on the first take, like they did with the Radeon 2900?

      • Bonzai says:

        Ahh I should have been more specific. I think I meant to say AMD has been progressing faster than nVidia in production. Not so much in technology. nVidia has been making great strides but at the cost of such new designs has been pushing them back (Not their fault, more like the chip manufacturer.) due to die issues or fabs.

        No idea if AMD is going to fail with their next product but more Radeon’s are making their way into people’s desktops than nVidia’s as of late. I could be wrong about that. I would really like nVidia to deliver up production and be a bit more competitive with pricing off the bat. I’ll tell you what, I will be watching what Bulldozer does and what AMD’s next video card does just the same. I will never be fooled again by ATI’s 800XT or whatever that piece of crap was, but I am quite curious to see where they go. I just plan to be wary this time.

        Time will tell. again.

      • Scali says:

        Yea, it can really go either way. AMD’s new design might mean their chips become larger, more the size of nVidia’s chips, which puts them at the same risks manufacturing-wise (they both use TSMC).
        AMD also faces other problems: a new architecture means they have to start from scratch with their shader compilers. It may take a while to get them to produce code that is as optimized as nVidia’s.

        But, they could get it right the first time. Both nVidia and AMD have examples of either way.
        The Radeon 9700 was a great success from day 1. The Radeon 2900 was a total failure.
        The GeForce 8800 was a great success from day 1. The GeForce FX was a total failure.

        Fermi falls a bit inbetween. The general consensus was that the chip design was way too complex and inefficient. But nVidia proved them wrong. In just a few months they came up with the GeForce GTX460, and not much later, the GTX580. Still the same basic design, but with a few tweaks here and there, and with TSMC’s production process maturing, the chip started to work very well.
        So even if you don’t get it right the first time, it might be possible to recover in a short time.

  4. Matt says:

    It seems you share another pet peeve of mine.

    Like with the equally clueless Linux fanboys there is a simple filtering method you can employ to avoid being drawn into their absurd emotionally-driven arguments and save alot of time; question their experience in practical implementations of their apparent knowledge or merely pose a question that requires greater cognitive ability than parroting.

    However it’s usually much easier than that. I can’t recall the last time an AMD zealot understood a concept that isn’t an advertising point let alone understood the actual significance of such (most often it’s about as simple as 2 > 1 therefor 2 = better for x)

  5. Pingback: Hate fail | Scali's blog

  6. NewImprovedjdwii says:

    Hey i know this blog is well kinda old now but what is your thoughts on AMDZone.

    Abinstein is nothing but issues for me(and the Admins do nothing) i am some what a Amd fan(i don’t hate Intel) but i give him more and more facts(about Intel advantages) and he does nothing but put me down. Have you been on their maybe you should do a blog about it i would love to read it.

    These people make Amd fans look bad. Really i would love to see a blog about it. I’m starting to agree with you when it comes to Amd fans are crazy. Scali peace man like i said on another post like a month ago but i really mean it now you made a new firend and i’ll stick around. Sorry for any bull crap i gave you before i really am.
    I may think what you said about John is not true but hey he was wrong but it was also awhile ago i guess. I’m sure it was around 50% better then their current products then(or at least on paper) but now their saying 35% and your right about why would they pick a smaller number over a bigger number. Simple way of looking at it but true. if anything JF-AMD does not know what he is talking about, Not really he is lying just he has no idea and only Liston’s to what the engineering department or the marketing team say.

    Its funny how much your post make sense after i step outside the Amd camp.

    To all the people hating on this dude at least try to give Facts why!!! i at least i tried to and he keeped coming back it is his blog after all.

    • Scali says:

      I cannot really comment on AMDZone or its members in great detail, as I don’t actively follow the forum, let alone participate in it. I just know that in general they are extremely biased towards AMD, and come up with all sorts of crackpot theories why Intel CPUs are faster in benchmarks than AMD CPUs. But I don’t really know people like Abinstein or the things they say exactly.

      One thing they should realize though… If your CPU is not that good at running code optimized for Intel CPUs, perhaps you should look at yourself as the problem. AMD fans can probably all tell you that the Pentium 4 was a failure. I doubt that many of them can name technical reasons why it was a failure. One of them is that the Pentium 4 was not very good at running code optimized for a Pentium III or earlier processor. That approach just doesn’t work when there’s so much legacy code around. Not even for Intel, let alone for a smaller player like AMD. So if AMD strays too far from Intel’s architecture, they are painting themselves into a corner just like Intel did with the Pentium 4. Your CPU won’t look good in benchmarks, as a result it will be received poorly, and developers will also not put enough effort in to optimize their code for your new architecture, since they have preconceived ideas about the performance. Bad performance will always be because of your CPU, not their code.

      As for Fruehe, given his position at AMD, I don’t think he can afford to be this wrong about their own products. A man in his position should know what he is talking about. If he is wrong (and ofcourse his mistakes are always in favour of AMD, what a coincidence), he is misleading his customers, and not just his own customers… By going on regular consumer/user forums, he oversteps the boundaries of his job description, and goes beyond the server/workstation market, and also misleads regular consumers/end-users.
      Whether he does this deliberately or not is irrelevant (but I can’t imagine someone getting a job like his if he doesn’t even know basic CPU architecture, so I am not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt).
      The point of my blog was to collect some of John Fruehe’s lies, and confront him with them once Bulldozer is out. It will probably not be that difficult to get an online petition to fire him, with plenty of AMD fans being disappointed with Bulldozer. That is, if AMD doesn’t already promote him away anyway, like they did with Randy Allen earlier.
      I just hope we can stop these practices by AMD once and for all. They always cry about Intel not playing fair, but this is not exactly fair play either.

  7. NewImprovedjdwii says:

    i would have to agree they seem to think the only reason Amd is losing in performance is because of Intel new fancy instruction set, And ICC. They made so many reasons and then they start to put me down. I never got treated like that from any Intel fan. And yes i know lots of them.

    Load of crap Amd design is over 12 years old if i’m correct i would say the K8 from 2003 was just a brand new K7 from 1999 which was upgraded from their K6 in 1997. Point being is its just a old design, main reason why its starting to suck even at the competing the low-end market such as the I3. Their is only so much you can do I feel back in the day it was a pretty advantce kinda like the I7 first gen was kinda a revolution in tech.

    Have a great day and Once again I’m sorry for the BS i gave you before.

    • Scali says:

      Blaming ICC is a joke, since hardly anyone uses ICC. On Windows it’s mostly the Microsoft compiler, and on *nix it’s mostly gcc. AMD loses, regardless of what compiler you use.

      And the K7 was an all-new architecture.
      The history of AMD is more or less this:
      8086/88/286: AMD was only used to outsource some of Intel’s production, the designs were 100% Intel (as such, performance was identical, although various non-Intel chips scaled higher in clockspeed, because they continued to develop/die-shrink architectures which Intel had already abandoned in favour of newer generations).
      386/486/5×86: AMD reverse-engineered Intel’s chips, and made their own clones, which were pretty much photocopies of the Intel ones. AMD believed they had the right to copy Intel’s designs because of the outsourcing contract they had for Intel’s earlier chips (Intel stopped outsourcing production with the 386, since the only reason they did it in the first place was because IBM did not want to be dependent on just a single source. By this time there were enough PC clones around that IBM no longer had enough leverage to push Intel to outsource production).
      K5: AMD tried to design their own x86 rather than copying any of Intel’s designs. They used the Am29000 RISC CPU backend that they developed earlier, and built a x86 decoder for it. The chip was a huge failure.
      K6: AMD bought a company called NexGen, which had developed a CPU called Nx586. AMD adopted it and sold it as K6, although it had nothing to do with the K5. The K6 was also far more successful than the K5.
      K7: AMD bought a lot of technology from the former Digital Alpha team, and built an x86-compatible machine out of it. Again, it doesn’t really have much in common with its predecessor. By using the Alpha technology, AMD solved the problems of having to rely on slow buses and chipset (until now they had to rely on outdated Socket 7 platforms, where Intel had introduced new sockets and faster buses), and of their poor FPU peformance.
      Everything from then on is basically tweaking the same K7 core.

      With Intel, yes, quite a few of their CPUs can be seen as a revolution or milestone. For example:
      8086: First CPU of what we now know as the x86-family of processors.
      80386: 32-bit extension of x86, also including protected mode with virtual addressing modes etc, laying the groundwork for modern OSes such as Windows NT and *nix derivatives on x86, which we still use today.
      80486: FPU becomes integrated, and as such is now a standard feature for x86.
      Pentium: superscalar architecture, massively improved performance, also much better FPU.
      Pentium Pro: Out-of-order execution, makes almost RISC-like performance and clock-scaling possible, without sacrificing backward compatibility. The blueprint for all modern x86.
      Since then it’s become less spectacular. Pentium 4 was an attempt at something grand and revolutionary, but didn’t work out that way. Since then we’ve gone a step back towards the Pentium Pro architecture, and developments have become more evolutionary in nature… Although the leap in performance is sometimes still quite impressive. Core2 being such an occasion. And Sandy Bridge as well.

  8. Hawk says:

    “Some idiot does not know the difference between throughoutput (sic) and speed”.

    You sick Bastard it is ‘throughput’ and not ‘throughoutput’. Go finish your elementary school first, then come back and preach about processors.

  9. Bachawan says:

    I am an AMD FanBoy and AMD sukcs, but I like AMD any problem?

  10. Anon@ says:

    WTF? You say “fanboys” as you say “ventboys”!
    I mean you do not like the fan (mounted on the heatsink) the CPU builder deliveres.
    You all are arguing with your own farts!

    Do argue about practical results! PLEASE!

    Do not be sutch “dumb marketing idiots”!
    Technology is evolving, racing, raging!
    Ups and downs are to be.

  11. transtec says:

    all I have to say about Intel fanboys is what a load of show off arse holes, they think that there i5 and i7 are tops, lol, AMD pile drive is going to wipe Intel face in the dirt, and we AMD fanboys will have great fun watch you all cry like little girls,

  12. transtec says:

    Intel fanboys remind me of the rich people who would give a poor person the steam of their piss, whereas AMD do care, by making processors that poor people can afford, and near the same performances as Intel processors, yes that won’t be as good, but at least there cheap to by, and do what most people want in a processor, not like Intel robbing F**king Bastards,

  13. snorre1349 says:

    Great blog. Amd is in a bad shape. Their 8 core bulldozer has failed. Even their manager admited it:
    ““Bulldozer was without doubt an unmitigated failure. We know it,” Feldman said.”

  14. Xavier Lim says:

    For me, the best CPU/APUs that AMD made are the: FX 8300/8320/8350, FX 6300,
    Athlon II X4 860k, A10 7850K, But seriously you are autistic for saying AMD Fanboys are idiots, try telling that to the tons of Nvidia Fanboys who are always aggressive while AMD Fanboys are passive. Sometimes, think before even starting a flame war.

    • k1net1cs says:

      “AMD Fanboys are passive.”
      “8/10. Not enough ignorance.” -IGN-

      You obviously haven’t been in many hardware-related forums that have both sides.
      And this article obviously talked about CPUs, yet you only mentioned NVIDIA fanboys?
      Why not Intel fanboys?

      11/10; will troll again.

  15. Just another underdog says:

    Got to give kudo’s to the little engine that could. AMD has made huge strides to compete with the Intel jugernaudt. I like to root for the underdog. Tough to beat the price for performance, the mother boards chipsets that you don’t have to upgrade with every new CPU release. So being an AMD fanboys has its perks.

    • Scali says:

      I don’t think seeking out the best value for money is the same as being an AMD fanboy.

      • Alan Sulzer says:

        Then define it for us Scali. You go at lengths to rip on people that like AMD hence the title of your trolling article. Obviously you’re just a typical troll. I am sure you must play WOT all the time. AMD fan boys are like yen to your yang. AMD Fans have knee jer reaction to the constent braging of well my Intell can do this. AMD people are smarter than your regular crew because they are smart enough to relize how much performance they really need and are smart enough to realize they can usually get all they need for 40% or more less than that of Intel. so who is the real idiot? You for being a troll? You for getting it wrong when it comes to being an AMD FAN Boy? Did you notice what company has the top 7 CPUs on Hmmm… so do you want to charm us more with your BS?

      • Alan Sulzer says:

        Scali, I would appreciate if you would delete my last entry. I don’t need to respond like that and am trying to stop doing that. Again. I appologise for my comments.

        Alan Sulzer

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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