The most likely author of the Heartland Institute climate strategy memo?
A computer analysis may suggest the document's most likely author
By Shawn Lawrence Otto | Feb 23, 2012 | Comments (74)
A lot of fuss is being made about the provenance of the Heartland Institute's climate strategy memo (PDF). Heartland says it's a fake, although as I showed several days ago, it is, if anything, a milder version of the information contained in much greater detail the apparently authentic Fundraising Plan (PDF).
So why claim it's a fake? One explanation is because the document was not intended for the entire board, but for a select few, as it itself says. This could prove internally embarrassing for Heartland's senior staff and could possibly damage relationships with board members of the second class.
Another is that there is something as-yet undiscovered about the document that is incriminating or embarrassing in some other way.
But the most obvious reason would be, as Heartland's communications director Jim Lakely told me, because it really is a fake. Gleick says it was anonymously mailed to him. Perhaps this was by a whistleblower, or perhaps it was by an disgruntled insider. Or perhaps it was a honeypot - a sweet trap designed to compromise or discredit Gleick by getting him to write about it, while Heartland could trumpet how it is not authentic - in which case it would seem Gleick turned the tables by posing as a board member and requesting - and receiving - a cache of authentic Heartland documents.
At this point this is all conjecture. There is simply not enough data.
Anthony Watts, one of the climate deniers the Heartland documents show is slated to receive tens of thousands of dollars in support from Heartland this year, has suggested that the document was forged by Gleick after he got the other documents. This seems improbable, considering that the other documents are far more inflammatory.
But Watts makes another suggestion which, being a writer I found intriguing: perform stylometry and textometry to see if Gleick really did write the climate strategy doc. Watts even helpfully suggests an open source java app called JGAAP that purports to do this.
I decided to try it out.
Methodology
The program works by entering a document by an unknown author and then it compares it, using various user-selected analyses, to a document(s) by known authors. Here's what I used:
Unknown Author Document:
1. The disputed Heartland Institute climate strategy memo. (docx)
Known Author Documents:
1. Peter Gleick's mea culpa from HuffPo (docx)
2. Peter Gleick's previous HuffPo piece on climate and water. (docx)
3. Joe Bast's responses to Gleick' mea culpa (Bast is the president of the Heartland Institute) (docx)
4. Joe Bast's piece criticizing Sara Reardon's piece in Science. (docx)
5. Heartland Staff's Section 6 of the Fundraising Plan. (docx)
6. The disputed Heartland Institute climate strategy memo - as a control.
I supplied links to the above documents so you can verify my methodology and attempt to replicate my results. As you can see, I copied the above six documents into word documents for uniformity but did not alter the language in any way.
The program analyzes according to several possible methods, which you can choose. It lists results by low score to high, low being the most probable author of the unknown document.
The program and my methodology may be subject to flaws. I may have typographical errors in my documents that could influence the results. I may not have chosen the best methods of analysis. The documents I selected may not be a large enough representative sample of the respective writings of the various authors. I may not have chosen a broad enough selection of authors. The program may contain logical or mathematical errors. I would encourage others to attempt to replicate, critique, and perform other analyses.
Results
Of the six author choices of: The Memo Itself, Peter Gleick 1 & 2, Joe Bast 1 & 2, and Heartland Staff, based on the above criteria, here are the scores JGAAP assigned for most likely authorship of the climate strategy memo under just a few of the many analyses the app can perform:
Heartland Strategy Memo.docx
Canonicizers: none
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events
1. Strategy Memo 0.0
2. Joe Bast 3.2756019350109358
3. Heartland Staff 5.861152017670673
4. Peter Gleick 7.631295386657848
5. Joe Bast 10.572152376359865
6. Peter Gleick 11.883756639524362
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events
1. Strategy Memo 0.0
2. Joe Bast 2.599109316906122
3. Heartland Staff 6.170704701235744
4. Joe Bast 9.570177815725275
5. Peter Gleick 13.307560177813828
6. Peter Gleick 13.695029284565496
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word stems as events
1. Strategy Memo 0.0
2. Joe Bast 3.8820363096787065
3. Heartland Staff 7.695783407036921
4. Joe Bast 12.653793919968829
5. Peter Gleick 14.734167804512905
6. Peter Gleick 16.420190717794636
One possible flaw not considered in the above methodology is that the program could be attributing too close of an authorship match to Joe Bast and Heartland Staff because the strategy memo contains a sentence that also appears in the authentic Fundraising Plan: "Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective."
I next crontrolled for this possibility by deleting the sentence in question from the climate strategy document, which I resaved as Climate Strategy Memo 2 (docx) and reran the same three analyses, using the original, full strategy document as one of the possible known authors, and got the following results:
Heartland Strategy Memo 2.docx
Canonicizers: none
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events
1. Strategy Memo 1.938705726184192
2. Joe Bast 2.9968217577188563
3. Heartland Staff 5.5472178990613275
4. Peter Gleick 8.156321472803725
5. Joe Bast 9.863690024204885
6. Peter Gleick 11.241849893833598
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events
1. Strategy Memo 4.183330096592706
2. Joe Bast 5.2640798702672384
3. Heartland Staff 7.577255315445771
4. Joe Bast 8.593442340043726
5. Peter Gleick 12.32193237311855
6. Peter Gleick 16.31481171381239
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Camberra Distance using Word stems as events
1. Strategy Memo 3.188360519110196
2. Joe Bast 4.783646657279247
3. Heartland Staff 9.110105530159261
4. Joe Bast 12.56463219477823
5. Peter Gleick 14.959700479974499
6. Peter Gleick 16.735394841607917
Conclusion
According to the above six analyses, which may contain unknown errors, the most likely author of the climate strategy memo is Heartland Institute president Joe Bast.
Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Tags: Antiscience, Climate Change, Politics, Science, Media, Technology, Crime, Cool Research
Comments (74)
Michael Tobis:
Feb 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM
The primary reason to call the disputed memo fake is because it displays astonishing cynicism and obvious malice. The other documents just display commitment to their twisted causes and their customers, er..., donors.
At this point, Heartland is totally committed to its fakeness. Heartland has vigorously denied authoring the memo and has piled on along with everybody else on "undermine" and "anti-climate". And Heartland is claiming that the distribution of the allegedly fake memo was Gleick's entire purpose in the release.
If this ever gets pinned on Bast, it will blow up in their faces spectacularly. So in the scenario where it is actually Bast, Bast knows it, and Bast is lying, in that scenario Bast now has no choice but to stick to his guns and say he never saw the thing. Bast is on record saying he would never say such horrible things, and claims that therefore Gleick must have manufactured it.
The other interesting aspect is, given this result, why all the finger pointing at Gleick in the first place? Specifically, Mosher, who started the finger pointing at Gleick, must have been pretty cnfident that it was Gleick, somehow.
Even if you claim that Gleick very skillfully imitated Bast's vocabulary, which could conceivably account for the JGAAP results, this proves that Mosher could hardly have, as he asserts, instantly noticed Gleick's writing style.
coniston:
Feb 23, 2012 at 02:13 PM
I would think that you would need to test only those parts of the "Strategy" doc that were not lifted from the other Heartland docs. If you test the whole doc of course it is going to come up Bast because most of the doc is copied - in some cases word for word including a whole sentence which Mosher spotted - i.e. David Wojick's bio. If you are testing a doc with two (or more) authors, it will be more difficult and results more unreliable.
The exercise is interesting in analysing author style, but it will never rise to the level of evidence either way.
Marcel Kincaid:
Feb 23, 2012 at 05:29 PM
I don't think you understand the concept of evidence. To quote Wikipedia: "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion". One piece of evidence does not rise to the level of *proof*, but this is most certainly evidence. And besides, Anthony Watts suggested this technique, so we expect him to accept the findings as evidence, if he has a shred of intellectual honesty ... but then, he said he would accept the results of the BEST study but of course did no such thing when they didn't go the way he wanted.
itzac:
Feb 23, 2012 at 02:31 PM
I find it peculiar that not one person has mentioned the possibility of some other party having forged the document then sent it to Gleick.
Also, in order to obtain the documents he did from HI, he would have had to know what to ask for. Where did that information come from?
Marcel Kincaid:
Feb 23, 2012 at 05:34 PM
"I find it peculiar that not one person has mentioned ..."
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you aren't aware of anyone mentioning something doesn't mean that no one has mentioned it. In fact this very article suggests that possibility when it talks about a "honeypot".
"Also, in order to obtain the documents he did from HI, he would have had to know what to ask for."
More argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because you can't imagine an alternative doesn't mean there isn't one.
Bill Jamison:
Feb 23, 2012 at 09:07 PM
Do you really believe that Joe Bast or anyone else at Heartland Institute would use the term "anti-climate"? That term doesn't even make sense! How can ANYONE be "anti-climate"? That and the other mistakes in items such as the budget should make it clear that it's a fake. I find it interesting that Steven Mosher thought Gleick was the author based on his documented improper use of commas and parentheses. Stylistically it certainly seems to fit Gleick. It may have even been that identification by Mosher and others that led Gleick to admit his deception.
It will be interesting to see if other duplicate your results using JGAAP.
Shawn Lawrence Otto:
Feb 23, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Thanks Bill, yes it will be interesting as you say.
Have you considered the possibility that Mosher fingered Gleick immediately because he was the one who sent Gleick the alleged strategy memo? It strikes me as odd that he would identify Glieck almost immediately and publicly. But if the Heartland docs appeared, along with the memo he himself sent Gleick, for whatever motive, that would immediately identify Gleick as the leak. Just saying.
As to the budget and fundraising documents, Heartland has essentially verified them by recounting how they were gotten and apologizing to donors and others for their release.
Dave H:
Feb 24, 2012 at 02:05 AM
Mosher laid out his chain of reasoning in comments here:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/02/22/the-combustible-climate-debate/
As I understand it, he pegged that it had different metadata to the other docs first, then got a feel that it might not be genuine from the writing, then settled upon Gleick because his name is in the doc. Everything subsequent has been an exercise in finding writing of Gleick's with apparent similarities. Which is why I am unconvinced by the Gleick authorship claims.
Jeff:
Feb 24, 2012 at 07:50 AM
Shawn,
As someone mentioned at WUWT, isn't this thrown off by the fact that many pieces are edited after the original author?
E.G., I work with a 501c3, not quite similar to Heartland, but our official communications (i.e., definitely documents 34, #5, possibly #4) go through at least one editor, sometimes more before they go out.
Same with Gleick. I'd be inredibly shocked if his mea culpa was not written without extensive guidance by a lawyer. And no offense to Gleick, but his writing isn't Shakespeare, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacific Institute gave his blog posts a quick once over.
Just something to think about
D. Robinson:
Feb 24, 2012 at 08:07 AM
Are you guys not capable of critical thinking or are you avoiding it on purpose? Leaving aside Shawn's asinine comment that maybe Mosher did it, the reason Mosher thought of Gleick in the first place was BECAUSE of the writing style in the strategy memo.
Were it not for the completely bizarre use of parenthesis instead of commas, the word 'anti-climate' and other stylistic oddities combined with a West Coast time stamp nobody would have fingered Gleick in the first place.
So according to you folks, he DIDN'T write the fake memo but WAS immediately suspected of it due to its writing style and COINCIDENTALLY happened to be the one that impersonated the HI board member? That's a whopping coincidence.
If the strategy memo was the first thing Gleick received, how likely is it that one call and one subsequent email package would pull out every single piece of corroborating evidence exactly matching the memo? Either that's whopping coincidence number two or, more logically, whoever wrote the memo already had seen the other documents.
Further, the memo wasn't written by a true skeptic because skeptics don't believe teachers need to be 'dissuaded' from teaching science, they believe the science is biased at best or completely wrong at worst. It was written either by an evil denier that secretly agrees with the 'consensus', or it was written by an AGW believer that thinks all skeptics are liars.
The memo was written by Gleick, a Gleick compatriot / staffer or somebody trying to set up Gleick.
Shawn Lawrence Otto:
Feb 25, 2012 at 09:00 AM
As others have pointed out, the heavy use of parentheses is also common to Heartland documents, so this suggestion seems inconclusive to me. The PST time stamp seems more convincing as evidence pointing toward where the document may have been scanned, but not who wrote it. The above stylometric analysis, as I said, is prone to numerous errors and not conclusive. It only speaks to relative probabilities based on the evidence considered and the analyses performed. There is simply not enough data to make any further conclusions at this time.
Hank Roberts:
Feb 24, 2012 at 08:29 AM
> How can ANYONE be "anti-climate"?
How can ANYONE be "pro-global-warming"?
> how likely is it that one call and one subsequent email
Bast said there were more than one, they were fooled twice.
Electronic Cigarette:
Apr 30, 2013 at 08:25 AM
lnivytibxopuup/dpn, Electronic cigarette gdl, CKGYINu, [url=http://prettyoblivion.com/]Highest rated electronic cigarette[/url], iRsavHE, http://prettyoblivion.com/ Electronic cigarette comparison, ixXvUYo.
RomanM:
Feb 24, 2012 at 08:35 AM
I tried to post this at the Huffington site, but was rejected because the comment was too long.
Are you sure this was done correctly?
I downloaded your files and attempted to duplicate your work. Initially, I got error messages when using the .docx files provided. However, after saving them in the earlier Word .doc format (and also as ordinary text files), the program ran smoothly. All instructions as given were followed and the results were:
Heartland Strategy Memo.doc D:\Otto Files\Heartland Strategy Memo.doc
Canonicizers: none
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Canberra Distance using Character 2Grams as events
1. Strategy Memo 0.0
2. Peter Gleick 351.42130776228015
3. Joe Bast 352.58168488057447
4. Joe Bast 429.3252413560006
5. Peter Gleick 506.8088869961059
6. Heartland Staff 568.8816858635792
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Canberra Distance using Word 2Grams as events
1. Strategy Memo 0.0
2. Joe Bast 991.0149182362647
3. Peter Gleick 1002.0033572750334
4. Peter Gleick 1183.5345626116602
5. Joe Bast 1304.0765401409653
6. Heartland Staff 3260.0970573163086
Analyzed by Nearest Neighbor Driver with metric Canberra Distance using Word stems as events
1. Strategy Memo 0.0
2. Peter Gleick 475.2953391024075
3. Joe Bast 494.5595682060029
4. Joe Bast 612.1427626952322
5. Peter Gleick 618.9538041331741
6. Heartland Staff 1295.3724837604568
You will note that the ordering of the documents is different and that two of the analyses now choose Peter Gleick, rather than Joe Bast. You will also note that the magnitude of the statistics for each document is substantially greater than in the results of your post.
I have further questions about your method choices in the JGAAP program, as well as the particular texts you selected for the analysis, but that is another matter.
RomanM
D. Robinson:
Feb 24, 2012 at 08:54 AM
Hank,
"Bast said there were more than one, they were fooled twice." I see, thanks. Not sure what your comment about 'anti-climate' vs pro-global-warming meant.
My point in including the term 'anti-climate' was that, prior to this whole dust up, the only people (I can find) that use the phrase are AGW believers.
It is clear that the memo was not written by a skeptic, the phrases and pov are just wrong. Imagine reading a memo purported to be from an AGW believer talking about "keeping the AGW hoax intact and on a roll" - you would know right away it was a fake, just like skeptics know this one is.
Anoymous:
Feb 24, 2012 at 05:12 PM
The strategy memo contained clips from the other documents. You only refer to deleting a sentence. Wow. Do you really expect anyone with critical thinking skills, rather than merely true believers, to take this at all seriously? Are you intentionally playing stupid games to waste our time, or do you really lack the critical thinking skills to see the problem?
Shawn Lawrence Otto:
Feb 24, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Stupid or not, it is drawn from the suggestion of Steven Mosher http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/an-online-and-open-excercise-in-stylometrytextometry-crowdsourcing-the-gleick-climate-strategy-memo-authorship/#comment-901160
MythOfFingerprints:
Feb 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM
The type of document you use is obviously hugely important. As described in the JGAAP documentation, if you're trying to discover the author of a poem, you have to compare to other poems. So I tried substituting Gleick's mea culpa for his prepared testimony at a senate hearing, which is closer to the language and style used in a memo. As a sanity check, and to have a little fun, I also included Jeffrey Katzenburg's famous memo "Some thoughts on our business." Unfortunately, there's really nothing appropriate to use for Bast. At least the reply to Reardon is on the subject of climate change, though (as opposed to a "heartfelt" apology, for example). I used the word bigrams and character trigrams as recommended in the best practices section of the tutorial. Spoiler alert: Gleick was by far the most likely author according to character trigrams. Sadly, I think we can rule out Jeffrey Katzenberg as the author. Word bigrams was close to a tie between all the authors -- all were within a few hundredths between .9 and .95. I'm not including the exact numbers, though, because they're meaningless. All I really proved to myself is that you can easily manipulate the results to get the answer you want based on the type of sample you use. So, considering that a common complaint about Global Warming science is that the results are being tuned to fit the theory, maybe not such a great idea to... tune your results to fit your theory.
This whole Gleick episode has gone beyond ridiculous. He lied to HI to get the documents, he lied to his friends like DesmogBlog about being a "Heartland Insider", and he's very likely lying about the provenance of the Super Secret Confidential Strategy Memo. None of this should matter to the debate over global warming. It's real, we need to do something about it. Throw Gleick under the bus and forget him, please. The insistence from activists that he's some kind of hero or martyr only feeds the narrative that AGW exponents are willing to believe anything to support their cause.
MythOfFingerprints:
Feb 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Just to clarify, I don't mean to disparage JGAAP, which is a fascinating research project and probably an excellent analytical tool given the right kind of problem. It's just that there isn't the right kind of data available to use it to its full effect. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out."
always question:
Mar 14, 2012 at 01:42 PM
When you don't know what you're doing with a software model, you can get anything to happen by tweaking this or that.
If you have no experience with it, it's irresponsible to use such a tool and claim it's correct.
You "tried it out" which granted, which is a step...like first learning to walk, or ride a bike, or drive a car.
However, some people might have more experience and get more accurate results.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-concludes-peter-gleick-is-the-likely-forger/
Shawn Lawrence Otto:
Mar 14, 2012 at 07:09 PM
This was, of course, the point. It was, indeed, "irresponsible" of Anthony Watts to suggest readers adopt this approach on his blog, and it highlights the flaws in the current exercise you link to, as well. This new "study" porporting to reveal Gleick as the author has equally limited credibility because A) JGAAP showed different answers; B) the study was commissioned by an interested party (big surprise he got the results he had hoped for) and C) as noted by other experts, the sample the study considered was irresponsibly small to the point of being garbage. From Maciej Eder: "It becomes quite obvious that samples shorter than 5000 words provide a poor "guessing", because they can be immensely affected by random noise. Below the size of 3000 words, the obtained results are simply disastrous."
See http://dh2010.cch.kcl.ac.uk/academic-programme/abstracts/papers/html/ab-744.html
Anyone experienced in statistical analysis like Watts claims to be should surely recognize the merits of that observation.
Byronic:
Mar 15, 2012 at 04:47 AM
> A) JGAAP showed different answers;
I believe it possible, maybe even likely, that JGAAP could show different answers, and not reliably identify an author, but even a cursory examination of your post shows you are not using the software correctly.
> B) the study was commissioned by an interested party (big surprise he got the results he had hoped for)
You're stretching "commissioned" to mean something that it doesn't in common parlance.
> and C) as noted by other experts, the sample the study considered was small to the point of being garbage.
Agreed, I am doubtful that software examination of the text can be used to identify the author.
It's funny how you say now that your point was to prove that stylometric analysis was flawed as an approach - because at the time your wrote 2 articles, you never mentioned that as your goal - you merely cautioned that your analysis might be unreliable.
Instead you wrote 2 articles accusing Jo Bast of being the author, based on your experiment. Your experiment was then republished at HuffPo & Greg Laden, again making the same accusation - Greg Laden retrospectively and deceptively edited his article to imply it was partly a joke - but is still sticking with the line that because you completed your experiment first, it must be reliable, and proves Bast is the author.
You never issued a correction, or even made a comment, correcting the misinterpretation of your experiments at Laden's or Huffington Post.
You also told an untruth in your article, claiming the memo "simply recapitulates the information contained in much more incriminating detail in [other documents]".
Even a cursory examination shows that is untrue.
First there is a significantly different use of language, for example "anti-climate", stopping teachers from teaching science, and so on, which only appears in the disputed memo.
Secondly there are funding details in the disputed memo which do not matchthe other documents - such as Koch funding being for climate work, Koch having already paid $200K, and apparent double counting of $88K.
Thirdly there are miscellaneous items, many libelous if untrue, which appear only in the disputed memo, such as a secret strategy being distributed to only a subset of the board.
Fourthly, and in my opinion my significantly (in terms of determining the author), the entire section about Gleick, Forbes, (as well the bit about Revkin, Curry, etc.), only appears in the disputed memo.
Science is in large part about honesty. Maybe you should think about that.
I would be charitable enough to say your summation of the memo might be an honest mistake.
I would also be charitable enough to say that maybe your failure to communicate that the purpose of your experiment was to point out the weakness of stylometric analysis (rather than accuse Bast of being the author), was also an oversight.
But if you are honest, then you need to go back and correct your mistakes.
That means making a prominent correction in both your articles here, and your articles at Huffington Post, and doing the best to get a correction at Laden's too - posting a comment if not able to do anything else.
So, I challenge you to be a credible science writer, and correct these points.
Red Jeff:
Mar 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Good luck with that Byronic!!! Some folks have already been fooled twice. I think I'll get my science at another blog!! ;)
irpgxbuxe:
Oct 26, 2012 at 12:38 PM
MZje41 iyiogswwhipv, [url=http://gbtcexakkohg.com/]gbtcexakkohg[/url], [link=http://yeeffkaznwsg.com/]yeeffkaznwsg[/link], http://mlihpuguwksm.com/
Germanvasd:
Oct 29, 2012 at 03:55 AM
http://topamaxinfo.net/#buy-topamax-cheap topamax and weight loss - order topamax cheap http://infodiflucan.com/#buy-diflucan-cheap purchase diflucan canada - generic diflucan online pharmacy
Oldasetf:
Oct 29, 2012 at 07:20 AM
http://www.buyvaltrex5.com/#buy-valtrex-uk buy valtrex in canada - how can i order valtrex online http://www.buyworldlasix.com/#buy-lasix-uk order lasix furosemide - buy lasix prescription
buy cipro:
Oct 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM
http://ibuycipro.com/#buy-cipro-online-no-prescription order cipro online - cipro online order
buy accutane online:
Oct 29, 2012 at 05:45 PM
http://buyisotretinoinonlineacne.com/#buy-generic-accutane accutane side effects - buy generic accutane
online pharmacy no prescription:
Nov 15, 2012 at 03:49 AM
http://cheaponlinepharmacygeneric.com/#prescription-canada pharmacies without prescriptions - cheap nolvadex online
buy celebrex online:
Nov 15, 2012 at 07:00 AM
http://buycelebrex911.com/#buy-celebrex-no-prescription celebrex online - celebrex generic 200mg
buy avodart online:
Nov 15, 2012 at 09:45 AM
http://www.buycheapgenericavodart.com/#avodart-buy buy avodart online usa - buy avodart online legally
buy proscar online:
Nov 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM
http://www.wheretobuyproscaronline.com/#buy-generic-proscar-online proscar online canada - buy proscar european
buy viagra online:
Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM
http://buyviagraonlinev.com#buy-viagra-online-no-prescription buy cheap viagra - buy generic viagra
buy imitrex online:
Nov 16, 2012 at 11:18 PM
http://www.buyimitrexonlinea.com/#buy-imitrex-us buy imitrex - buy imitrex migraine
buy propecia online:
Nov 17, 2012 at 07:08 PM
http://www.buypropeciaonlinea.com/#where-to-buy-propecia-online propecia buy australia - buy propecia 1mg
buy accutane online:
Nov 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM
http://accutaneinfo.org/#buy-accutane-cheap buy generic accutane no prescription - accutane lawsuit
accutane:
Nov 18, 2012 at 03:19 PM
http://buyisotretinoinonlineacne.com/#accutane buy accutane canada - buy accutane
buy imitrex online:
Nov 18, 2012 at 06:06 PM
http://imitrexinfo.org/#where-to-buy-imitrex imitrex dosage - imitrex injection dosage
buy cipro online:
Nov 19, 2012 at 04:14 AM
http://buycciproonlinea.com/#buy-cipro-online buy cipro no prescription - buy generic cipro online
buy strattera online:
Nov 20, 2012 at 02:19 AM
http://buy-stratteraonline.com/#strattera-mail-order strattera for sale online - strattera online cheap
buy amoxil online:
Nov 20, 2012 at 04:10 PM
http://amoxicillininfo.org/#buy-amoxicillin-online online antibiotics - where can i buy amoxicillin antibiotic
buy cipro:
Nov 20, 2012 at 07:00 PM
http://buy-genericcipro.com/#buy-cheap-cipro-online buy cipro - buy cipro online canada
buy celebrex online:
Nov 20, 2012 at 09:47 PM
http://buy-genericcelebrex.com/#celebrex-buy celebrex generic celecoxib - celebrex order
buy aciphex online:
Nov 21, 2012 at 12:33 AM
http://onlineaciphexbuy.com/#buy-generic-zovirax buy aciphex online us pharmacy - buy aciphex cheap
buy sildenafil citrate:
Nov 21, 2012 at 08:04 AM
http://buy-sildenafilonline.com/#sildenfil-citrate buy sildenafil citrate - citrate
buy cialis online:
Nov 22, 2012 at 06:02 AM
http://cialisonlineb.com/#buycialis buycialis - cheap cialas
buy zovirax:
Nov 23, 2012 at 03:47 AM
http://buyherpesmedicines.com/#buy-generic-zovirax purchase zovirax tablets - buy cheap zovirax online
buy viagra:
Nov 23, 2012 at 06:38 AM
http://buyviagraonlinedrug.com/#generic-viagra buy cheap viagra - cheap viagra
buy viagra:
Nov 23, 2012 at 09:29 AM
http://buyviagrawebonline.com/#cheap-viagra generic viagra - buy viagra no prescription
buy celebrex:
Nov 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM
http://ordergenericcelebrex.com/#buy-generic-celebrex-online celebrex buy cheap - celebrex online india
sildenafil:
Nov 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM
http://buysildenafilonlinec.com/#sidenafil sildenafil citrate - sildenfil citrate
buy prozac online:
Nov 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM
http://buy-prozaconline.com/#buy-prozac-online buy generic prozac online - buy generic prozac online no prescription
buy levaquin:
Nov 25, 2012 at 06:03 PM
http://www.buylevaquingeneric.com/#levaquin-buy buy levaquin canadian pharmacy - buy levaquin
buy lasix:
Nov 25, 2012 at 08:46 PM
http://lasixonlineq.com/#buy-generic-lasix-online diuretic lasix buy - buy lasix tabs
buy lamisil online:
Nov 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM
http://lamisilonlinel.com/#lamisil-online-no-prescription where to buy lamisil tablets - lamisil online no prescription
buy proscar online:
Nov 26, 2012 at 02:17 AM
http://proscarinfo.org/#buy-proscar-online-no-prescription buy proscar tablets - buy proscar uk
buy paxil online:
Nov 26, 2012 at 02:21 PM
http://buy-paxilonline.com/#order-paxil paxil online - buy paxil online
buy levaquin online:
Nov 27, 2012 at 02:45 PM
http://buylevaquinonlinel.com/#where-to-buy-levaquin-online levaquin quinapril - levaquin generic online
buy diflucan online:
Nov 28, 2012 at 05:30 PM
http://buydiflucanonlined.com/#order-diflucan-online generic for diflucan 150mg - where to buy diflucan no prescription
buy viagra:
Nov 29, 2012 at 05:05 AM
http://buyviagrawebonline.com/#buy-viagra-melbourne where to buy viagra online - i do like to buy viagra from usa
buy levaquin:
Nov 29, 2012 at 07:51 AM
http://buygenericlevaquinonline.com/#levaquin-online-cheap buy levaquin 750 mg - buy levaquin online 750mg
buy accutane:
Nov 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM
http://buyisotretinoinacne.com/#buy-cheap-accutane order accutane online no prescription - buy accutane
ppmauhovhb:
Oct 08, 2012 at 06:43 AM
hHo8MF topsrfqdoelp, [url=http://onxszeticjfa.com/]onxszeticjfa[/url], [link=http://mcrxtjtkqmbf.com/]mcrxtjtkqmbf[/link], http://diooigrpcwdy.com/
syychj:
Oct 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM
a61vsh tcixtqvwvpca, [url=http://vfgcwvnlzzad.com/]vfgcwvnlzzad[/url], [link=http://xlmqmwradsbq.com/]xlmqmwradsbq[/link], http://emexlxlezurw.com/
mtjnhhodn:
Dec 02, 2012 at 12:14 AM
p6urfi exldyewkzprm, [url=http://fperqtvquxxq.com/]fperqtvquxxq[/url], [link=http://attcyuqqvpdt.com/]attcyuqqvpdt[/link], http://eucqjvaycimb.com/
rqnhgxee:
Dec 06, 2012 at 01:29 PM
EkEWA5 qvrqpatlarye, [url=http://jfbycgbqnqwj.com/]jfbycgbqnqwj[/url], [link=http://jpemhinqdlfh.com/]jpemhinqdlfh[/link], http://zriehbyuldkj.com/
flhdhxk:
Dec 22, 2012 at 02:59 AM
LZ1QFA zsncspyrqcwt, [url=http://inrxqdfvemay.com/]inrxqdfvemay[/url], [link=http://blwxivuniodk.com/]blwxivuniodk[/link], http://dqucydzzauvg.com/
Nikitonya:
Dec 22, 2012 at 07:27 AM
[URL=http://wiki.thecrackden.com/index.php/User:Randykeysiw]Replica watches[/URL] and [URL=http://www.transitlocalstyle.com/index.php?title=User:Randykeysiw
]Breguet watches[/URL] or [URL=http://www.magt-wiki.com/index.php?title=User:Randykeysiw
]Rolex to buy[/URL]
Miikkimao:
Dec 22, 2012 at 09:10 AM
Buy tag heuer online and also Swiss replica designer watches
Pustishka123:
Dec 23, 2012 at 04:06 PM
quickly tadacip side effects http://cipada.com/
best price priligy http://piligry.com/
Order buy Vardenafil http://vanafil.com/
Buy ED Drugs female cialis http://cialisforwomenrx.com/
No Precription ed pills http://edpillson.com/
Treatment & Care Cialis Canada http://cialiscanadaonline.com/
Category amoxil 500 http://www.amoxilhelp.com/
Online Generic Pharmacy buy provera http://www.proverastore.com/
What is Erectile Dysfunction Drugs? clomid for men http://www.clomidhelp.com/
Erectile dysfunction drugs generic cialis http://www.genericcialishelp.com/
save time and money buy zovirax http://www.zoviraxcreamrx.com/
delivery Inderal LA http://inderalstore.com/
ED drugs avapro 300 mg http://avaprostore.com/
Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction buy Benicar http://benicarhctstore.com/
Quality Generic Drugs Buy Synthroid http://buysynthroidnow.com/
buy now Zyvox http://buyzyvox600mg.com/
buy online Zetia 10 mg http://zetiastore.com/
Pustishka123:
Dec 23, 2012 at 04:06 PM
anonymously Crestor 20 mg http://whatiscrestor20mg.com/
buy drugs only excellent quality Lamictal side effects http://buylamictalsideeffects.com/
Only at the lowest prices tadalafil http://tadamed.com/
only high quality products kamagra side effects http://kamaragra.com/
high quality kamagra oral jelly http://kamagaz.com/
Erectile Dysfunction viagra sildenafil http://viasild.com/
click here azithromycin 250mg http://azitom.com/
What is ED Drugs? tamoxifen side effects http://atamox.com/
advantageous conditions of purchase tadalafil side effects http://tadalilaf.com/
Canadian Online Pharmacy cialis viagra http://viacila.com/
click and buy deltasone side effects http://allergicone.com/
do not miss the opportunity to buy at a bargain price lasix side effects http://xasila.com/
LOW Prices! viagra for woman http://femalvia.com/
best online drugstore vardenafil hcl http://filarden.com/
the order for the house Filitra http://fitrali.com/
Online Generic Pharmacy sildenafil 100 mg http://sildecitra.com/
Without Prescription dapoxetine review http://apoxetin.com/
buy medicines sildigra http://kadigra.com/
pggngu:
Jan 13, 2013 at 03:31 AM
9sDKjI fxzenxjdptpg, [url=http://dbrgsmmbslrq.com/]dbrgsmmbslrq[/url], [link=http://phooutozrapf.com/]phooutozrapf[/link], http://zlwhgukldbqu.com/
jdrzugsoc:
Jan 30, 2013 at 06:06 PM
JLwo8k krqdivqglicm, [url=http://reuqmoikhlsj.com/]reuqmoikhlsj[/url], [link=http://evjencbzbubz.com/]evjencbzbubz[/link], http://bxzsjqwswfuo.com/
tlthlyw:
Feb 03, 2013 at 08:18 AM
aGlAhP otinolbqhlfw, [url=http://wlywesrltxew.com/]wlywesrltxew[/url], [link=http://hvvlnmiqfibl.com/]hvvlnmiqfibl[/link], http://liigzohvmpfv.com/