The Frontiers Expert Panel

By Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol
Posted on 16 April 2014

Updated below: 17 April 2014

When Frontiers retracted our paper “Recursive Fury” (available at uwa.edu.au/recursivefury) they were very clear that the journal “…did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study.”

The journal has since issued several conflicting positions, and their latest statement raised a concern about identification of ‘human subjects’ that can only be considered an ethical issue.  

Not only does this latest statement depart from journal’s previous public stance and signed agreements, but it also deviates from the opinions of Frontiers’ own expert panel that they appointed last year to examine the issues surrounding Recursive Fury.

Concerning the subject and consent issue, that expert panel concluded:

 Participant Status and Informed Consent

The question of participant status is an important and complex one.  It turns on the question of whether an individual’s (identifiable or not) postings to blogs comprise public information and therefore do not fall under the constraints typically imposed by ethics review boards.  The issue is currently under debate among researchers and publishers dealing with textual material used in scientific research. Advice was sought from the leading researcher on web-based psychological studies and his response was that “among psychological and linguistic researchers blog posts are regarded as public data and the individuals posting the data are not regarded as participants in the technical sense used by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards.   This further entails that no consent is required for the use of such data.”  Although this view is held by many researchers and their ethics boards, it is by no means a unanimous judgment and it is to be expected that legitimate challenges, both on ethical and legal grounds, will be raised as web-based research expands in scope.  But to the charges that Fury was unethical in using blog posts as data for psychological analysis, the consensus among experts in this area sides with the authors of Fury. 
(Emphasis added.)

The consensus among experts is further reflected in the fact that the research was conducted with ethics approval by the University of Western Australia.

The consensus among experts in the area is that scholarly analysis of public speech can be conducted without requiring consent.

The University of Western Australia agreed with this consensus.

Frontiers publicly agreed with this consensus.

 

Update 17 April 2014:

Some commenters have, quite reasonably, asked me to release the entire expert report. I cannot do so because it is still strictly confidential.

I released the above section of the report because it spoke directly to an issue on which Frontiers made public statements that were irreconcilable with both an agreement they signed and their own expert report. This was done after extensive legal consultation and after inviting the journal to correct its latest public statements. I posted this unabridged relevant section only after the journal declined the invitation to set the record straight.

If it weren’t for these special and legally vetted circumstances, I would have honoured the confidentiality of this report as I have honoured all other agreements. The confidentiality of the remainder of this report remains in full force.

Bookmark and Share

84 Comments


Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 80 out of 80:

  1. As you will learn, with Willard that is often the point.
  2. > I still don't get your point.

    I'm sorry you don't, RickA.

    Have you tried to ask **Frontiers**?

    Please report, and thank you for your concerns.
  3. "I released the above section of the report because it spoke directly to an issue on which Frontiers made public statements that were irreconcilable with both an agreement they signed and their own expert report."

    "The confidentiality of the remainder of this report remains in full force."

    So parts of it are confidential and parts are not? Let me guess: the parts of it that support your case are no longer confidential and the parts that do not remain confidential.

    Have I got that right?
  4. Sou @ 10:

    Sou said "So Frontiers went to an expert panel and got the best advice and acted accordingly (and published the paper), then backed off when a "small number" of deniers went ape-shit over it and misrepresented the paper, then finally caved to the deniers."

    I hadn't noticed this before - but I think your timing of events is off (in this statement).

    I believe the paper was published, then pulled and reposted (with a couple of sentences changed).

    Then the expert report was commissioned during the year, while the paper was in limbo.

    Then based at least in part on the expert report, the paper was retracted.

    In other words, the expert report did not come before the paper was published, but after.

    It will be nice to see the entire expert report, which I am sure will eventually be fully published.

    For example, while the comments were fair game for research, what did the expert report have to say about naming names of the commenters?

    I certainly haven't noticed the authors names being published in papers done based facebook, twitter data, or google search data.

    Of course, currently we have no way of knowing what the expert report concluded about the issue of naming names - other than that the paper was retracted for lack of consent of the participants.
  5. > we have no way of knowing what the expert report concluded about the issue of naming names

    We do know that Frontiers "did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study" at the time it retracted the paper.

    If Frontiers considers that naming names is unethical, then its first statement is false.

    If Frontiers considers that naming names is not unethical, then it must clarify what they mean by "cannot be justified."

    In either case, Lew can't answer for Frontiers.

    Using Lew to get at Frontiers (or the other way around certainly) raises ethical questions lawyers may need to face.
  6. The language in the statement, ". . .did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study" is obviously constructed with intent to avoid saying categorically that Frontiers "found no issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study."

    The language is important. They chose not to "identify" the issues for legal reasons and to allow an agreement to occur which would allow Prof. Lewandowsky to trumpet his exoneration to the world. It's lawyerese, i.e. "weasel words" for COL. Unfortunately, the professor's minions would not leave well enough alone and started a campaign to slime Frontiers.
  7. > The language is important.

    Quite so, as Frontiers can use it to find something without identifying it.

    But not as much as the truth which is out there.
  8. pottereaton,

    Complete quotes from above statements;

    "Participant Status and Informed Consent

    The question of participant status is an important and complex one. It turns on the question of whether an individual’s (identifiable or not) postings to blogs comprise public information and therefore do not fall under the constraints typically imposed by ethics review boards. The issue is currently under debate among researchers and publishers dealing with textual material used in scientific research. Advice was sought from the leading researcher on web-based psychological studies and his response was that “among psychological and linguistic researchers blog posts are regarded as public data and the individuals posting the data are not regarded as participants in the technical sense used by Research Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Boards. This further entails that no consent is required for the use of such data.” Although this view is held by many researchers and their ethics boards, it is by no means a unanimous judgment and it is to be expected that legitimate challenges, both on ethical and legal grounds, will be raised as web-based research expands in scope. But to the charges that Fury was unethical in using blog posts as data for psychological analysis, the consensus among experts in this area sides with the authors of Fury."

    The above quote answers one specific question, Fury was not "unethical in using blog posts as data for psychological analysis", Fury was ethical based on the current consensus in the relevant field of study. However, legal issues are another matter, as Frontiers indicated in the original statement.

    If you Google IRB/social science/human subject research/internet/blog/social media, and the like, you will find dozens of peer reviewed articles, over the past decade/dozen years or so.

    IMHO, the principle uncertainty has to do with "harm" and not "consent" per se, based on my readings of said literature.

    IMHO, "harm" in this case, is primarily an issue of liability and not an ethical issue per se.

    "Update 17 April 2014:

    Some commenters have, quite reasonably, asked me to release the entire expert report. I cannot do so because it is still strictly confidential.

    I released the above section of the report because it spoke directly to an issue on which Frontiers made public statements that were irreconcilable with both an agreement they signed and their own expert report. This was done after extensive legal consultation and after inviting the journal to correct its latest public statements. I posted this unabridged relevant section only after the journal declined the invitation to set the record straight.

    If it weren’t for these special and legally vetted circumstances, I would have honoured the confidentiality of this report as I have honoured all other agreements. The confidentiality of the remainder of this report remains in full force."

    So quote mining from the above statements (e. g. cherry picking) and then erecting your own strawman argument(s), are considered two forms of informal logical fallacies.

    Just, you know, sayin'
  9. EFS "So quote mining from the above statements (e. g. cherry picking) and then erecting your own strawman argument(s), are considered two forms of informal logical fallacies."

    Well, yes, that's precisely my accusation against Prof. Lewandowsky. Cherry picking from a "confidential," "expert report" in order to prove his case. Why are some parts of the report confidential and others are not? Kind of like being little bit pregnant, no?

    Furthermore analyzing people's public statements to find pyschopathogical behavior in order to hold people up to public ridicule cannot possibly be ethical. Nor can it be considered in anyway medically or pyschologically complete analysis until the subjects are actually interviewed personally.
  10. How about releasing the section of the report, that looks into the conduct of the researchers...

    for example Michael Marriott, who thinks he is at 'war' with the sceptics, and was directly and personally interacting with the 'particpants' - calling them names, generally and directly at people named in the paper, being antagonistic and abusive and cheerleading for the previous paper..

    what about that section?
  11. > what about that section?

    Have you tried to contact Frontiers for that section, Barry?

    Tell them about the Auditor's "unclean hands" doctrine, e.g.

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/26/another-ipcc-demand-for-secrecy/


    * * *

    Here's an interesting counterfactual. Suppose Frontiers published the Fury while the ethics panel disapproved. What could have been the contrarians' reaction?

    We could expect the same moves managed differently. The overall strategy would be the same.
  12. Steve Metzler at 00:48 AM on 25 April, 2014
    The sense of entitlement exhibited by the likes of pottereaton and Barry Woods just beggars belief. How could any kind of research be conducted if random people on the internet are allowed access to any documents (especially confidential ones) and e-mails pertaining to that research? 'Chilling' isn't even the right word to describe what effect that would have. If things worked that way in the realm of academic research, no one would want to be a scientist - not one who deals with science that informs policy anyway.

    You'd be constantly harassed by anyone in the public sphere who doesn't like the results of your research. Oh, wait...
  13. Steve Metzler: I don't claim to be entitled to anything, other than the right to judge the quality of science as a layman. If the research significantly affects policy and scientists want their research taken seriously, they need to "free the data and free the code," as has been said. If they are making controversial claims that potentially affect millions of people, their research needs to be replicated. Peer review does not normally replicate. Governments basing expensive policy initiatives on scientific research need to know the research is valid for such purposes.

    The research that Professor Lewandowsky engages in that attempts to discover and publish psychopathological traits in individuals by pyschoanalyzing them from afar does not qualify as science in my opinion. It's more like witch-hunting than valid research.

    In climate science, governments are taking at face value controversial and often dubious findings in climate science. What if government security agencies begin to use analyses such as that done by Professor Lewandowsky to identify potential security risks that might affect the ability of applicants to get a jobs in government?

    "Chilling," indeed.
  14. pottereaton,

    Stephan Lewandowsky has every right to defend himself against false statements made by Frontiers.

    I quoted the entire sections above, since that's all we have at the present moment.

    Please read the entire statements posted above which include;

    "This was done after extensive legal consultation and after inviting the journal to correct its latest public statements. I posted this unabridged relevant section only after the journal declined the invitation to set the record straight.

    If it weren’t for these special and legally vetted circumstances, I would have honoured the confidentiality of this report as I have honoured all other agreements. The confidentiality of the remainder of this report remains in full force."

    So clearly there are legal considerations that go beyond simply defending oneself against false statements made by Frontiers.

    People are asking for a full copy of said report, while I just happen to be agnostic on this matter.

    So, it would appear that, you did engage in cherry picking and strawman informal logical fallacies, as you yourself admit.

    IMHO, I seriously doubt that Frontiers will allow release of the entire expert report simply due to its actual timing.

    That timing would appear to be sometime after April/May of 2013, so we would need two dates, the date that Frontiers started the expert review process and the date when the final expert review report was made available to all concerned parties.

    In fact, we know that Frontiers did receive the draft copy on 05 November 2012.

    In fact, we know that Frontiers did publish the provisional copy on 02 February 2013 and at some later date removed the direct link to said copy due to several complaints.

    In fact, we know that Frontiers did publish the final copy on 18 March 2013 and at some later date removed the direct link to said copy (and/or removed the final copy altogether), again due to several complaints.

    In fact, we know what Henry Markram's last statement/sentence is;

    "But there was no moral dilemma from the start – we do not support scientific publications where human subjects can be identified without their consent."

    In fact, we do not know what "from the start" actually means given the above dates.

    In fact, the provisional copies are still available from Frontiers;

    http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile.ashx?pdf=1&FileId=2918&articleId=40138&Version=1&ContentTypeId=58&FileName=Provisional%20PDF.pdf

    http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile.ashx?sup=1&articleId=40138&FileId=2676&FileName=Data%20Sheet%201.PDF&contentType=Data%20Sheet&contentTypeId=6&version=1

    See also;

    http://www.zora.uzh.ch/77086/
    http://www.zora.uzh.ch/77086/1/Lewandowsky_2013_Recursive_Fury.pdf


    There can be no doubt as to who posted these copies of RF, and that would be Frontiers.

    In fact, if Frontiers had their current statement on human rights research in force "from the start", they would never have published RF as they actually did.

    In fact, Frontiers would have asked for at least an anonymized version "from the start", before any publication of RF in any form.

    Frontiers did not do those things "from the start" but instead formed their human rights research policy, not "from the start", but after the fact.

    In fact, Frontiers handled this situation so badly, and Frontiers published the names of individuals, as is, such that any anonymized version of RF will forever be in some form of limbo (meaning getting the paper peer reviewed and published elsewhere) given the very existence of both the provisional and final copies that Frontiers did publish.



    As to your "psychopathological" remark, the facts speak for themselves.

    The term "psychopathological" has a very specific meaning, as in mental disorders, and the relevant classification systems, DSM/ICD.

    Looking at DSM-IV/V and ICD-10, the partial word "conspir" (to capture all complete word forms) appears exactly twice, as a single symptom, in both DSM

    versions, it appears in the ICD-10 "greenbook" and "bluebook" exactly one time each as a single symptom.

    Who used the phrase "psychopathological" to begin with in the 1st place at Frontiers?

    http://www.frontiersin.org/people/costanzazucca_1/15284/profile
    http://www.frontiersin.org/people/FredFenter/82/profile

    Quite clearly, neither of these two people have even the minimum necessary training to be making such a statement, as say for instance, a currently active highly respected practicing research clinical psychologist/psychiatrist would have, in other words, a subject matter expert (SME).

    From the paper itself, the following words/phrases/paragraphs can be found;
    "criteria" and
    "content analysis" and
    "descriptive discourse analysis" and
    "psychological articles" and
    "psychological attribute" and
    "psychological level" and
    "psychological constructs" and
    "psychological processes" and
    "Our criteria were exclusively psychological and hence did not hinge on the validity of the various hypotheses."

    "A second criticism might cite the fact that we have considered the “blogosphere” as if it were a single entity, analyzed within the context of psychological processes and constructs that typically characterize individuals rather than groups. Our response is twofold: first, at the level of purely descriptive discourse analysis, our work fits within established precedent involving the examination of communications from heterogeneous entities such as the U.S. Government (Kuypers et al., 1994) or the Soviet Union (Kuypers et al., 2001). Second, at a psychological level, numerous psychological constructs - such as cognitive dissonance, social dominance orientation, or authoritarianism - have been extended to apply not only to individuals but also to groups or societies (e.g., Moghaddam, in press). We therefore argue that our extension of individual-level work on conspiracist ideation to the level of amorphous groups fits within precedent in two areas of scholarly enquiry."

    You would also find "mental disorder" in said paper, but that is only a partial quote made by the ABC and not by any of the authors of said paper.
  15. Steve Metzler at 08:52 AM on 25 April, 2014
    @pottereaton #63:

    Peer review does not normally replicate.

    Hey, now I think we're finally getting somewhere. You don't like the results of someone else's study? Get you own data and do your own study. Publish it in the literature, and show them up. *That's* how science advances.

    Don't snipe at someone else's paper for a year and a half from the sidelines (or in the case of McIntyre vs. Mann, make that 15 years). That's 'blog science'. It can by definition never resolve anything. You're not competing on an equal footing. And expecting actual scientists who have poured their whole lives into their chosen field to co-operate with 'armchair' scientists who are only going to ridicule them on blogs? Why should they do that? It's not the way the scientific method works. You people haven't a *clue*.
  16. EFS_Junior @64 asked "Who used the phrase "psychopathological" to begin with in the 1st place at Frontiers?"

    I assume it came out of the expert report, was part of the basis for their recommendation for retraction and was then used in the April 4, 2014 statement.

    I assume it was not used in the original retraction statement because that statement was written in cooperation with the Authors and Frontiers withheld some of its retraction reasons due to compromise in negotiating the agreement over the retraction statement.

    Where do you think this phrase came from?
  17. Steve Metzler at 03:04 AM on 26 April, 2014
    Sorry to burst your little bubble there, RickA, but in order for your assumptions in #66 to be true, the statement from the part of the expert report which Dr. Lewandowsky published above:

    But to the charges that Fury was unethical in using blog posts as data for psychological analysis, the consensus among experts in this area sides with the authors of Fury.

    would have to be in *direct conflict* with some other part of the *same expert report*.
  18. Steve @67:

    Not really. The expert report could be saying that it is ok to study public comments - but they might have gone on to say that what is not ok is to use those public statements to analyze named individuals in a medical paper without their consent.

    So I don't see my hypo in conflict with the portion of the expert report quoted at all.

    Of course, I would like to see the entire report - to see whether I am right or not.
  19. Steve:

    Put another way - they might be saying if you use a blog post from blog poster A (not using their name), then consent might not be required. But if you use a blog post from Steve Metzler, you might need to obtain consent. In either case it is ok to use blog posts - but whether consent is required varies between my cases.
  20. RickA,

    From Frontiers 1st blog statement;

    http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of__Recursive_Fury__%3Cbr%3EA_Statement/812

    "Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics."

    The way the above is written, perhaps psychopathological was used in the expert report.

    However, it does hinge quite strongly (IMHO) on the "within the context of" though.

    As in, you can find an individual symptom that falls within mental disorders/DSM-IV/DSM-V/ICD-10, as I've shown for "conspir" above.

    However, finding a symptom, or a word from a symptom, is not the same thing as a diagnoses of a mental disorder, as some blogs have suggested that particular specific meaning.
  21. Enough of this endless speculation!

    The true story behind Stephan's masterpiece has finally made the big screen -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL_QWRgj_-k
  22. Steve Metzler at 19:06 PM on 26 April, 2014
    @RickA #68:

    Not really. The expert report could be saying that it is ok to study public comments - but they might have gone on to say that what is not ok is to use those public statements to analyze named individuals in a medical paper without their consent.

    Oh, I get it now. We're playing Climateball (TM), where the climate change contrarians make up the rules as they go along, and even the simplest of phrases in the English language is allowed to be bent, spun, and twisted into any interpretation you like to suit your viewpoint. Sorry, but the phrase from the export report that I quoted above:

    But to the charges that Fury was unethical in using blog posts as data for psychological analysis, the consensus among experts in this area sides with the authors of Fury.

    says eff all about having to get consent. It says that the way the authors of Fury made use of blog posts was *ethical*. Not playing this game any more. Better things to do. Climateball: where black is white and the sky is not blue if the topic is anything related to climate change; otherwise, the normal rules of physics and logic apply.
  23. Hello,

    I'm from Europe.

    I've tried to understand what were the problems with this survey. I've read comments on Skepicalscience and Climateaudit. What I still don't understand is what is exactly meant by the word "conspiracy theorists" when talking about "climate denialists".

    1) When per definitionem a "climate denialist" = "conspiracy theorist" why would one need a survey?

    2) How can we ever save the planet when we discuss and fight these minor problems. As far as I can read the blogs, most "climate denialists" are also environmentalists. So why fight when we all should work together to save the planet?

    Best Regards
    Mich
  24. Steve #72

    We will know whether you are right or whether I am right when the full expert report is released.

    All we know if the expert report resulted in the paper being retracted and EJS_Junior agrees we me that maybe the basis for the retraction:

    "Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics."

    could have come out of the expert report.

    If so, the selective quotation by the Author must not be the last word in the expert report.

    So I think my speculation is consistent with the facts as we know them.

    We will see.
  25. > We will know whether you are right or whether I am right when the full expert report is released.

    RickA can thus speculate to his heart's content until his demands are being met. After all, it takes way less energy than to ask Frontiers what they meant.

    RickA should beware bender's warning: "I think it is dangerous to try to overinterpret one man’s words."

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/19/unthreaded-n1/#comment-179810
  26. Conspiracy theory has been defined as the invocation of a more-complicated explanation for something (based on little or no evidence) in preference to the simplest-possible explanation (taking all evidence at face value).

    On this basis alone, like it or not, all those that continue to dispute the legitimacy of the recent conclusions of Lewandowsky et al are conspiracy theorists - or pseudoskeptics at very least – who reject the findings of maintstream science only when accepting them would challenge the sensibility of business as usual (i.e. something that the IPCC has now very clearly done in AR5).
  27. Hi,

    Is it true that there were questions about a conspiracy theory related to the war against Irac and the weapons of mass destruction?

    Do you know that the informant who pretended that Saddam had those weapons doees now live in Germany from "Hartz 4" (unemployment benefits).

    Do you know that german intelligence knew he was lying and that they had informed US-intelligence before the beginning of the attacks.

    Why are the results for those questions not part of the final paper?

    Everybody in Europe knew about these problems before the war against Irac began.

    Best regards
    Mich
  28. A new opinion has surfaced - from someone in a field of psychology close to Lewandowsky's own

    Social psychologist Jose Duarte thinks both of Lewandowsky's anti-sceptic papers are fraudulent and must be withdrawn by their authors.

    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog

    Perhaps Prof Lewandowsky could give us his considered opinion on this piece.
  29. louboutin sneakers


    christian louboutin


    cheap christian louboutin shoes





    Camel Christian Louboutin Boots 40mm Suede [Christian Louboutin0251] - $160.00 : Christian Louboutin outlet, clshoesforsale.top



























    language:

    Deutsch
      

    Français
      

    italiano
      

    EspañolRD4RE1RD2z}~\\\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3(REERD2%RD4RE1RD2z}~~~z}\\RD4RE1RD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE(((REERD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE52REERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3(REERD2RD4\RD3REEZ\\ZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1YREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2.\\\RD4RE1RD2~z}\\RD4RE1RD2z}\RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1REERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1YREE\RD3REE'\\-\4\RD6RD6\#\6\\2Z4REE\RD3REE\'\\-\4\RD6RD6\#\6\\2Z4\REE\RD3REEEEFREE\RD3REENAREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}\RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\~\RD4\RD3REE((REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3((REE\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE(REE\RD3REE((REE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE((REE\RD3REEFREE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEZZREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REEREE\
    RD3REEDEREE\RD3REEFDGREE\RD3REE$YYYREE\RD3REE\_Y\RD3RD3\P$YYYP^\Y\RD3\PPRD5REE\RD3REE\_Y\RD3RD3\PP^\Y\RD3\P$YYYPRD5REE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEZZREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1((YREE\RD3REE$REE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2\RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}\z}z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6REERD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\\\\RD4\RD3REEREERD2z}\\\\\\\\z}z}\\RD4\RD3REEZREERD2\\z}\\\\\\\\RD4RD2z}\\\\\\\\~RD4\RD3REEZREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YREERD2?RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZDYREERD24\;\5\$RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFGYREERD24\;\'RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}~RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFFYREERD24\;\$RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}~~RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\z}RD4\RD3REEREERD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\RD4RE1RD2z}z}\\RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6REERD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REEREERD2z}RD4\RD3REEFGGREBREE\RD3REEGREE\RD3REEGREE\RD3REEGREE\RD3REE: REERD2z}\\RD4RD2z}z}\RD4\RD3REE48REE\RD3REE;REE\RD3REERD6\EEGREERD2z}RD4\RD3REE48 REE\RD3REERD6\EEGREERD2z}RD4\RD3REE54REE\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6\EEGREERD2z}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4D\RD3REE5?\REE\RD3REE?REERD2RD4RD24RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1DRD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REE4REE\RD3REE54\4REERD2RD4\RD3REE(REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1REE\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REEYY_^RD5REERD2}\\RD4\RD3REE"$3REE\RD3REEREERD2"$\3RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE2"%REERD22RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE05'REERD205\'RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE463REERD24\3RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE6"3REERD26\3RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE='.REERD2=\.RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE98 YREE\RD3REERE1REE\RD3REEREE\RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1
    YREE\RD3REERE1REE\RD3REEREE\RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REERE1REERD2z}Y
     z}z}RD6RD5z}z}RD6RD5z}z}RD6GRD5z}z}RD6RD5z}RD6DGFRD5z}RD6DGGRD5z}
    RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE:>REE\RD3REE4\REERD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE
    REE\RD2\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZCGZZZFBA@YREE\RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$YREE\\RD3REE4\4\;\5\CG\$REE\\RD3REERE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$YREE\RD3REE
    REERD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REERD6RD5REERD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3P
    P\RD3REEREERD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6EAGRD5\RD6RD5\ZRD6DGRD5\ZRD6FBRD5REE\RD3PZZPRD2z}RD4\RD3REEZRD6RD5\ZRD6FGRD5\Z
    RD6FCRD5REERD24\4\;\5\CG\$RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REE'REE\RD3REE0REERD2z}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RECDO@YGG\RD4RE1RD2REARD5RD4\RD3REE$'REERD2RECFAGYGGRD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REE'3REERD2RD4\RE1RD2$RD6REARD5BNREB\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE6REERD2z}RD4D\RD3REE8#REERD2'\4RD6\RD4RE1DRD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE68REERD2z}RD4C\RD3REE9\REERD2RD4\RD3REE$REE\RD3REEZEREERD2$
    RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1CRD2z}\\\RD4\RD3REEREERD2}RD4\RD3REERB5ERB3REE\RD3REEZEREERD2}\\RD4\RD3REEEREERD2"$\FG\RD3\"<\O\RD3\2\CFRD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEDREERD2"$\B\RD3\"<\D\RD3\2\DARD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REECREERD2"$\A\RD3\"<\C\RD3\2\D@RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEBREERD2"$\@\RD3\"<\B\RD3\2\DORD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEAREERD2"$\O\RD3\"<\A\RD3\2\DNRD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@REERD2"$\N\RD3\"<\@\RD3\2\CGRD4RE1RD2}RD4RE1RD2}}RD4RE1RD2REARD5z}z}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REE6REERD2z}\\\\6\\4RD6\RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE(REE\RD3REEFREE\RD3REEAREE\
    RD3REECREE\RE1RD2RD4\RE1RD2RD4\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE(REE\RD3REEFBA@REE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1RE1((YREE\RD3REE6\\4REE\RD3REE\6\\4\REE\RE1RD2\\\\\\\\\\RD4RE1RD2z}\\z}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REEREERD2\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZCGZZZFBA@YREE\RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1YREERD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2\RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}\z}RD4\RD3REE3REE\RD3REE0\#REERD2RD4RD24\;\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\RE4\\\\\RE4\\\\RE4\\\\RE4\\\\\RE4\\\\\\\\\\\$\9RE4\\\\\\\\\\\\RE4\\\\\\\\\RE4\\\\\\\\Y\4\;\5\\\\\RE4\\\\\\\Y\$\\4\;\\\\\\\\P\RE4\\\\\\\RE4\\\\Y\4\;\\\\\\\\\Z\\$926<2%\8\\;8612%\Y\5\\\\\\\Y\\4\4\;\5\CG\$\\\9\5\\RE4.\P\YRD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE(REE\\RD3REEREERD2z}z}RD4\RD3PZRD6RD5PRD2RD4\RD3REE(REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$YREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$YREE\RD3AEG\RD3REERE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$YREERE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3PZRD6RD5PRD2RD4\RD3REE(REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZFYREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZFYREE\RD3AEG\RD3REERE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZFYREERE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3PZRD6RD5PRD2RD4\RD3REE(REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZEYREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZEYREE\RD3AEG\RD3REERE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZEYREERE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3PZRD6RD5PRD2RD4\RD3REE(REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZDYREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZDYREE\RD3AEG\RD3REERE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZDYREERE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3PZRD6RD5PRD2RD4\RD3REE(REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZCYREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZCYREE\RD3AEG\RD3REERE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z4Z;Z5ZCGZ$ZCYREERE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE3;REE\RD3REE5\REERD2z}\\RD4RD2:RD6\4\;GEBFRD4RE1RD2}\\}\\}\\}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE5 REE\RD3REE(REERD2z}RD4E\RD3REE5?REERD2%\'RD4RE1ERD2z}z}RD4RD2RD4RD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RD5RD6RD5RD6ECYBREBRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6FAGRD5RD6EGGRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFGGZZZD@EYREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1(RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z;Z!Z$Z5Z$YREE\RD3REE4\;\!\$\5\$\FGG\5REE\RD3REE\4\;\!\$\5\$\FGG\5\REE\RD3REEFAGREE\RD3REEFAGREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFGGZZZD@EYREERD24\;\!\$\5\$\FGG\5RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RD5RD6RD5RD6ECYBREBRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6FAGRD5RD6EGGRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFCGZZZFCAAYREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1(RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE15Z4Z;Z5ZFCGZ;YREE\RD3REE5\4\;\5\FCG\;REE\RD3REE\5\4\;\5\FCG\;\REE\RD3REEFAGREE\RD3REEFAGREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFCGZZZFCAAYREERD25\4\;\5\FCG\;RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RD5RD6RD5RD6ECYBREBRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6FAGRD5RD6EGGRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZ
    ZZFGGZZZB@DYREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1(RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE14Z;Z-Z5ZFGGZ%YREE\RD3REE4\;\-\5\FGG\%REE\RD3REE\4\;\-\5\FGG\%\REE\RD3REEFAGREE\RD3REEFAGREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZ
    ZZFGGZZZB@DYREERD24\;\-\5\FGG\%RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RD5RD6RD5RD6ECYBREBRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6FAGRD5RD6EGGRD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFGGZZZCBOYREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1(RE1RE1FEEA(RE14Z;RE1.Z4Z;Z5ZFGGZ$YREE\RD3REE.\4\;\5\FGG\$REE\RD3REE\.\4\;\5\FGG\$\REE\RD3REEFAGREE\RD3REEFAGREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFGGZZZCBOYREERD2.\4\;\5\FGG\$RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}\z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE%;REE\RD3REE%\REERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3((REARD5(RD3FBA@REARD5((RD3GREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1RE1((YREE\RD3REE \%REE\RD3REE\ \%\REE\RD3REENOREE\RD3REEFNREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4\RD3REE5REE\RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}\\RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REE$ REERD2z}RD4\RD3REE$REE\RD3REE\ZRD6FGRD5\ZRD6ORD5\RD6FGGREBRD5\ZRD6RD5REERD2z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YREERD2?RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3REERD2$RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3'(:REERD2 RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3REERD28\#RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD34REERD24RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3'(:REERD2'\:RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}RD4\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5\RD6FERD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1YRD1(RD3(REERD24\"RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5REARD5REARD5z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REE\ZRD6FGRD5\ZRD6FGRD5\RD6FGGREBRD5\ZRD6RD5REERD2z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REE\ZRD6RD5\RD6REDGGGRD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYREE\RD3REE(REERD29\4\;RD4RE1RD2\REARD5REARD5z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REE\ZRD6RD5\RD6REDGGGRD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYREE\RD3REE(REERD24\;\'RD4RE1RD2\REARD5REARD5z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REE\ZRD6RD5\RD6REDGGGRD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYREE\RD3REE(REERD24\;\5RD4RE1RD2\REARD5REARD5z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REE\ZRD6RD5\RD6REDGGGRD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYREE\RD3REE(REERD24\;\$RD4RE1RD2\REARD5REARD5z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REE\ZRD6RD5\RD6REDGGGRD5REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYREE\RD3REE(REERD24\;\:RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}RD43>!\\RD3REEREERD2\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZCGZZZFBA@YREE\RD2RD4>:0\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1YREE\RD3REEA@EREE\RD3REEBOREERD2RD4RE1RD2\RD4RE13>!RD2z}RD4\RD3REEREE\\RD3REERD6REDGGGRD5REERD24\R4ER6N\EGFEZEGFC\6\%\%Y\RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1REERD2\\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2zRD4RD2}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1REERD2\\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2zRD4RD2}RD4RD2RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1EAYYREERD2\\\\\RD4RE1RD2RD4RD2RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1OYYREERD2\\\RD4RE1RD2RD4RD2RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1CDCYYREERD2\6\Y\\RD4RE1RD2Q'J'
  30. beckenbaclore at 17:12 PM on 9 February, 2016
    breguet replicas
    | Fake Breitling watches
    | Fake Cartier watches



    Replica IWC watches

























    language:

    Deutsch
      

    Français
      

    italiano
      

    Español
      

    Português
      

    R2ARN@R6BR2ARN4R64R2OR66RN2REE\RD3REE\R2ARN@R6BR2ARN4R64R2OR66RN2\REE\RD3REEFCREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REEREE\RD3REE\\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REEREE\RD3REE\\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REE�REE\RD3REE\�\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REE�REE\RD3REE\�\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REEREE\RD3REE\\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REE9REE\RD3REE\9REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REEREE\RD3REE\\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REEREE\RD3REE\\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1REERD2z}~~RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1YREE\RD3REE2REE\RD3REE\2\REE\RD3REEFBREE\�RD3REEECREERD2RD4RE1RD2REARD5REARD5z}~~RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REEREERD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\RD4\RD3REE((REERD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}\RD4\RD3REE((REERD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE(((REERD2z}\\~~ REFz}~~\\\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1YRD1(RD3REERD2$\>RD4RE1RD2z}~\\\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1YRD1(RD3(REERD2%RD4RE1RD2z}~~~z}\\RD4RE1RD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE(((REERD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE52REERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1YRD1(RD3(REERD2RD4\RD3REEZ\\ZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1YREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2.\\\RD4RE1RD2~z}\\RD4RE1RD2z}\RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1REERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1YREE\RD3REE'�\\-\4\RD6RD6\#\6\\2Z4REE\RD3REE\'�\\-\4\RD6RD6\#\6\\2Z4\REE\�RD3REEFADREE\RD3REEAEREE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}\RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\~\RD4\RD3REE((REE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1YRD1(RD3((REE\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE(REE\RD3REE((REE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE((REE\RD3REEFREE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEZZREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE�REE\<br />
RD3REEDEREE\RD3REEFDGREE\RD3REE$YYYREE\RD3REE\_Y\RD3RD3\P$YYYP^\Y\RD3\PPRD5REE\RD3REE\_Y\RD3RD3\PP^\Y\RD3\P$YYYPRD5REE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEZZREERD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1RE1RE1RE1RE1((YREE\RD3REE$REE\RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2\RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}z}\z}z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6REERD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\RD4\RD3REE(REERD2z}\\\\RD4\RD3REEREERD2z}\\\\\\\\z}z}\\RD4\RD3REEZREERD2\\z}\\\\\\\\RD4RD2z}\\\\\\\\~RD4\RD3REEZREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1YREERD2?RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REE�RD6EOGREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZFEG@YREERD2#\5\�RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REE�RD6EOGREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1Z�ZZFDENYREERD2;\5\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\\\\\RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REE�RD6DBGREERD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1Z�ZZFCGCYREERD2:Z%\5\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}~~RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\z}RD4\RD3REEREERD2z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REEFREERD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZ�ZZF@EYREERD2%\'\'RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZZ�ZZOCYREERD2%\6Y\;\REARD5\$RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZ�ZZDBYREERD2%\6\'RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZBDYREERD2%\5RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZEEAYREERD2%\5RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZFDYREERD2%\0RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZ�ZZAOYREERD2=Z;4RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZFABYREERD2%\'RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZ�ZZFDCYREERD2!\4RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REEEREERD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZDDYREERD2%\4\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZFYREERD2%\%\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZCCYREERD2%\8\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1Z�Z�ZZFANYREERD2%\> 4\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZ�ZZFFGYREERD2%\'\ RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZ�ZZEAYREERD2%\#60\?RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1Z�ZZFEEAYREERD2%\4\�RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RD2RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1���Y�YRE1ZZZ�ZZAAYREERD2%\ 4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(DGCYREERD26\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZZFAN(EDCYREERD25\'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZZFAN(CBDYREERD24\'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZZFAN(DEDYREERD23\!\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(FONYREERD2>\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZZFAN(CGBYREERD2:\/!>\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZZFAN(F@GYREERD2'\4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZZFAN(DOEYREERD2'\3\4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(FODYREERD2'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(EFOYREERD2'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(DG@YREERD2$\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(DCBYREERD2$\'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZZFAN(BBGYREERD2!\4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZZNNYREERD24\=\4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZAOYREERD24\=\;4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZDNYREERD24\;\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZENYREERD24\:\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZFBCYREERD24\:\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZBGYREERD24\:\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZCCYREERD24\8\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFFGYREERD24\'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZF@EYREERD24\'\'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFABYREERD24\'\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFBFYREERD24\'\3\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFCFYREERD24\%\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZE@DYREERD24\%\:\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZACYREERD24\%\3\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFYREERD24\%\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZEAYREERD24\#\?\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFEFYREERD24\#\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZBBYREERD24\"Z5\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZAAYREERD24\"\9\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZFDCYREERD24\!\4\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1ZZZZ@CYREERD24\ \0\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4\RD3REEZREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1Z
    ZZZEGYREERD24\-\RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2}RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE54REE\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6\EFGREERD2z}RD4\RD3REEZZ\REERD2RD4D\RD3REE5?\REE\RD3REE?REERD21\Z\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1(YREERD2REARD5REARD5RB5RB3RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1DRD2RD4RE1RD2z}RD4RE1RD2z}z}RD4RE1RD2RD4RE1RD2z}\\\\RD4\RD3REE4REE\RD3REEREERD2z}z}\\\\RD4\RD3REE54REERD2\\RD4\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1REERD2?RD4RE1RD2REARD5RD6RD6REARD5}4\> 4\}RD4RE1RD2z}z}z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REE4REE\RD3REE';REERD2z}z}RD4F\RD3REE;?REERD24\> 4\RD4RE1FRD2z}z}z}z}z}RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REERD6RE1RE1YYRE1REE\RD3REEREERD2RD4\RD3REE;REERD21\%\RD6RD4RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE(REE\RD3REEREE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REE'REE\RD3REEFANREE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REEREE\RD3REEREE\RD3REEEGREE\RE1RD2RD4\RD3REE((REE\RD3REEYY_^REERD2}\\RD4\RD3REEGREERD2>\\\YYYRD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEABREERD26RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEAAREERD25RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEA@REERD24RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEAOREERD23RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REEANREERD22RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@GREERD21RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@FREERD20RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@EREERD2?RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@DREERD2>RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@CREERD2=RD4RE1RD2}\\RD4\RD3REE@BREERD2

Prev  1  2  

Comments Policy

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account.