Problems with 2013 Dispute/Expulsion System

Editorial Comment: Pastor Noland has been working on analyzing the Dispute Resolution Policy of the LCMS and this is a document that he recently generated. Feel free to download and distribute it widely per his instructions below.

 

  1. A person accused of doctrinal error may infinitely delay prosecution by continuously contesting the synod’s doctrinal resolutions or statements (see bottom of page one, last box).
  2. District President’s consultation with the CCM or CTCR may decide the case before it is heard, since how the question is framed determines the answer, and CCM or CTCR cannot do anything but answer the question as framed (see bottom of page 3, second to last box).
  3. District President may be disqualified due to “conflict of interest,” but “conflict of interest” is not specified, so any type of relationship with the accused or accuser can result in the District President being removed from case (see top of page four, third box from the top).
  4. District President, or his hand-picked Referral Panel, may terminate case arbitrarily, thus protecting doctrinal error in their district (see top of page 5, top two boxes).
  5. Hearing Panels, Appeal Panels, and Final Hearing Panels always have two or three district presidents out of a three member board to judge the cases. This is a confusion of executive and judicial powers (see middle page 5, fourth box from the top; top of page 6, third box from the top; bottom of page 6, last box).
  6. In Hearing Panels and Final Hearing Panels, both parties to the case and/or the synodical President, can ask for a binding opinion from the CTCR or CCM. How the question is framed determines the answer, because CCM or CTCR cannot do anything but answer the question as framed (see bottom of page 5, second to last box; top of page 7, second box from top).

NOTE: This document may be freely copied and distributed for the use of, and benefit of, members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. It is not to be altered or edited in any way.

Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

 

These flow charts are based on the original printed 2013 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The synod is now using an updated version that is only in electronic form. See here for a free online copy of the original printed 2013 edition.

All page numbers and bylaw numbers refer to that edition. The following charts and their explanations are for illustration purposes only, and are not to be relied on for actual cases.

Definition of Dispute/Expulsion

1) Disagreement; 2) accusation; 3) controversy; or disciplinary action (see Bylaw 1.10.1.1, p. 39).

Definition of Parties to a Dispute/Expulsion Case

1) LCMS congregation or LCMS rostered church-worker; 2) national LCMS itself; 3) LCMS district or LCMS controlled and owned entity; 4) case of excommunication in a congregation; or 5) a layperson who works for the LCMS, an LCMS district, or an LCMS controlled and owned entity (see Bylaw 1.10.2, p. 40).


Comments

Problems with 2013 Dispute/Expulsion System — 40 Comments

  1. Dear BJS Bloggers,

    With regard to Problem #1, I should make clear that the present CTCR is not interested in interminable debates. This became clear in Dr. Matthew Becker’s dissent. Here is an example of Becker’s dissent to the LCMS position:

    http://thedaystarjournal.com/talking-points-about-doctrinal-authority-in-the-lcms-2/

    Here is the CTCR’s response to his dissent, apparently after they had dealt with that case for awhile.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lcms.org%2FDocument.fdoc%3Fsrc%3Dlcm%26id%3D1675&ei=Ay5UVJ7qHcuZyASOx4KQBQ&usg=AFQjCNGL9Y124T0YMYECIk1R-VduJjJ-xw

    (you may need to approve the opening of the file on your computer).

    If we get a different CTCR, things could be different.

    I don’t know if Becker was using dissent as a way of avoiding a doctrinal discipline process, but he shows how it can be done. Now you might understand why our good church officers get so blasted frustrated by the system developed in 1992.

    Thanks to Norm Fisher for doing such a great job in laying out my document. A blessed Reformation evening to all of you!

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  2. The LC-MS should be commended for coming up with a dispute resolution process which can never actually resolve any disputes.

  3. Pastor Noland,

    Thank you for this excellent, albeit disturbing, piece of work. It reminds me of the Penrose Paradox in which the illustrated geometry is actually impossible. That’s not a good thing.

  4. This is what I was talking about on my post earlier today. Why would anyone enter into this process? On top of the mess described here as I understand it, once you enter into this process you have to sign an agreement that you will not talk about the matter outside of the DRP.

    In the LCMS you cannot deal with false teaching in the open and publicly. You cannot follow Matthew 18 and tell it to the church. Actually, the LCMS actually sees this process as “telling it to the church.” To tell it to the church according to the LCMS is to do the exact opposite thing that Jesus commands. You are not telling it to the church. You are going into the deep, dark, endless underground matrix known as DRP.

    We are members of a church that deals in darkness, deceit and unscriptural oaths.

  5. Certainly we should follow Matt. 18, and certainly our synodical leaders are bound to the DRP unless and until we change it, but…

    You can’t follow the DRP or Matt. 18 with an entity, so they are not really relevant to Five/Two. Five/Two is an organization.

    If I meet someone who identifies himself as active in Five/Two, I’ll happily ask about it and about the extent to which he supports it, and if I have a problem with the answers, I will follow these prescribed ways of dealing with it; but in general, there is no way to follow the DRP or Matt. 18 with an organization, so it should be dealt with as an organization.

  6. Dear Mrs. Broome,

    You got it exactly right in your comment #5. Organizations that are not part of the LCMS cannot be dealt with through the Dispute/Expulsion Process. The definitions are key, as spelled out in “Definition of Parties to a Dispute/Expulsion Case.”

    However, we do have this little-used article in the Constitution of the Synod, VI.2.c, that prohibits participation in heterodox organizations. It says:

    2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:
    a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church;
    b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession;
    c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.

    So if the synod in convention resolves that a particular group is involved in “heterodox tract and missionary activities,” then rostered members of the synod who participate in such groups could be disciplined in that way.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  7. I still can’t help but wonder that even if all the processes were in place according to scripture and our confessions, that THIS collection of leaders wouldn’t do the right thing anyway. I make this comment based on one key observation that many have made numerous times. So called Confessional leaders within our synod fail to even speak out against the heterodox movements that we face. No bylaw is standing in their way.

    Hope is an important thing. I believe that most of us would be supportive of our leaders if they’d just demonstrate that they, 1) hear, 2) care , 3) comprehend, and are 4) confessional. Based on their silence, I personally have absolutely zero, none, zilch hope that we can survive as a synod. I support taking steps to change things at the next convention, but I think any actions taken while the current cadre of leaders are in place will be futile. They may be good men, but they’re also derelict when it comes to their duty and responsibility.

  8. Organizations that are not part of the LCMS cannot be dealt with through the Dispute/Expulsion Process. The definitions are key, as spelled out in “Definition of Parties to a Dispute/Expulsion Case.”

    See, now this is where the lay person grows weary. When folks start with the but, but, but 5/2 is not part of the LCMS. Really? Well, everyone in 5/2 is in the LCMS and not by coincidence. They are in 5/2 for the express purpose of influencing congregations, members, and “communities” in the LCMS and that is their only purpose. In no real sense are they separate from the LCMS. 5/2 is a church planting network. So either they are part of the LCMS or they are usurping the LCMS, but they are not separate from the LCMS if the word separate still has any meaning left.

    It is like saying that the body can’t deal with cancer because cancer is not part of the body. Well, technically cancer is not supposed to be in the body and it is not a normal part of the body, but if it is in the body, it is not separate. It is in the body and must be dealt with, or else.

  9. @Mrs. Hume #8
    They are in 5/2 for the express purpose of influencing congregations, members, and “communities” in the LCMS and that is their only purpose.

    No, their first purpose in the pretense to being Lutheran is to get Lutherans to support them.
    Then they can go about their destruction of Lutheranism. Your cancer analogy is very apt! When the body dies, the cancer will die, too, but meantime it’s “eat, drink, multiply and be merry” (at the expense of the body) for the cancer cells.

    I agree with you. “5/2” has bragged that “it’s not just for Lutherans” … well, then, heterodoxy is in writing. Why aren’t they given the boot?

  10. Of course. I we put far too much trust in these Dist pres. I would include a team of laymen be involved in the very first stages. Let t, face3 to face.hem see how ugly these pres can be

  11. so sorry for spl errors. Laymen must be involved in the first stages so they can check these defiant Pres

  12. @helen #9

    Yeah, I agree, Helen. If LCMS folks are paying for, organizing, and then executing the planting of churches which is specifically a function of the synod, then they cannot possibly claim they are not part of the synod. If this doesn’t fall under the definition of ecclesiastical supervision, then the term has no meaning.

  13. Rev. George Naylor :
    The LC-MS should be commended for coming up with a dispute resolution process which can never actually resolve any disputes.

    This is a problem? I think it’s precisely what President Emeritus “I’m no theologian” Kieschnick intended. Thirteen years later the poster child of nearly every offence listed by the ACELC is still an ecclesiastical supervisor. That’s not what he wanted?

  14. Upon further reading, it turns out that Woolsey says they don’t plant churches.

    Friends, my name is Bill Woolsey. I, along with our BOD, lead FiveTwo. To answer some of your questions:
    1. We are not solely for LCMS churches. Other Lutheran denominations, Anglican, and a few Presbyterian have joined our ranks. So yes, ELCA folks and LCMC folks would be very, very welcome.
    2. Our aim is to stimulate the starting of sacramental (read high view of LS and Baptism) ministries, ultimately and especially church plants.
    3. We do not plant the churches; we simply encourage them and try to provide entrepreneurial (apostolic) knowledge to make that happen.

    Got that?

    One more time:

    3. We do not plant the churches; we simply encourage them and try to provide entrepreneurial (apostolic) knowledge to make that happen.

    Uh, what?

    What does it mean to “not plant the churches” but to “simply encourage them and try to provide entrepreneurial (apostolic) knowledge to make that happen.”

    Could Woolsey please “speak my language” and use like plain English.

    Does church planting include actual clergy, but providing “entrepreneurial (apostolic) knowledge to make that happen” does not?

    Could he be any more confusing? No one is familiar with the terms Woolsey uses, least of all the “unchurched.”

    http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4961.0

  15. What does it mean to have a “high view of LS and Baptism”?

    Is this commonly used phrasing?

    Maybe it is. I just don’t know.

    Do Baptists say they have a “low view of LS and Baptism”?

    Low view doesn’t sound very respectful, and high view isn’t clear either.

  16. @Pastor Ted Crandall #13

    Pastor Crandall, you mistake my meaning, I think. I was being somewhat facetious. Anyway, the DRP predates President Kieschnick or so I believe. He just reaped many of the benefits of it and helped to make it better, or that is to say, worse.

  17. Mrs. Hume,

    Typically those who teach the Biblical truth that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism forgive sins speak of those who don’t as having a low view, low in the sense that they are merely symbolic and do not forgive.

    Why he is pointing this out is strange.

    Woolsey should not have to say that he has a high view since he is a Lutheran but since he is trying to distinguish himself from his fellow church growthers, he says this. Or it may be that he is a pietist and knows that as a Lutheran he is supposed to extol the sacraments. I know a ton of Lutherans who really don’t beleive what they believe about the sacraments. I used to be one. But I knew it was important to say the right things about the sacraments so I did.

  18. @Pastor Ted Crandall #13

    @Rev. George Naylor #16

    Dear BJS Bloggers,

    Pastors Crandall and Naylor make comments about why the Dispute/Expulsion Process was created.

    The creators of the system in 1992 claimed that it was intended to replace the previous “adversarial” system with a “reconciliation” system and to prohibit members of the synod from using the civil courts. The system came in the wake of the CTCR document titled “I Corinthians 6:1-11: An exegetical study” (dated April 1991). This study claimed that secular courts cannot properly provide justice (p. 14), which claim is not Lutheran (see e.g., Apology XVI, 4 here: http://www.bocl.org?AP+XVI+58 ).

    As I have said recently in a comment here at BJS, if the creators intended to introduce a “reconciliation” element, they would have only had to insert one paragraph, requiring face-to-face meeting with the intent of reconciliation before adjudication began.

    But they didn’t do that. Instead, they created a completely new system of adjudication from the ground up. Significantly, they gave the powers of administering the justice system and actual judging to the district presidents–and took those powers away from adjudicators and appeal-judges elected by the synodical convention. So the system went from being unified, at the synodical level, to being balkanized at the district level.

    They also gave absolute appeal-power to the CTCR and CCM over cases, if questions were asked to those commission. So the CTCR and CCM act like the US Supreme Court in those cases, and have handed down many mandatory decisions. The CCM is appointed directly by the synodical president–they are his hand-picked men; although a new synod president has to work with CCM men appointed by his predecessor due to term lenghts.

    So, in the 1992 revisions, the powers of adjudication were passed from synodically-elected men (LCMS Commission on Adjudication; LCMS Commission on Appeals) to district-elected men (District Presidents) and synodical-president-appointed men (CCM). This lessened the authority of the synod-in-convention, and increased the powers of the synodical president and district presidents. These are simple facts, that cannot be contested.

    The motivations and reasons for these changes is anyone’s guess. Write or call Dr. Ralph Bohlmann and Dr. Wil Sohns and ask them for their reasons for these changes. I have never seen any good rationale from them, or anyone else, for the creation of the present Dispute/Expulsion System.

    But it is what we have right now, so synodical and district officials must abide by it. After all, the conventions of synod did approve the system, so we are stuck with it, until the convention “changes its mind.”

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  19. @Martin R. Noland #18
    “so synodical and district officials must abide by it. After all, the conventions of synod did approve the system,”

    Why do councils trump scripture? Why do we allow it? What does it say about the men who ‘must abide by it?’

  20. R.D. :
    @Martin R. Noland #18
    “so synodical and district officials must abide by it. After all, the conventions of synod did approve the system,”
    Why do councils trump scripture? Why do we allow it? What does it say about the men who ‘must abide by it?’

    http://www.post-gazette.com/news/obituaries/2012/02/15/Obituary-Wynn-Kenyon-Became-beloved-philosophy-professor-after-ordination-ordeal/stories/201202150985

    “Wynn Kenyon, whose ordination by Pittsburgh Presbytery was rejected by the national church in 1974 because he wouldn’t ordain women,… While his case fractured his denomination, he was never bitter,…”He never looked back in regret in any way,” she said. “He believed it meant that God was leading him in another direction….Mr. Kenyon, who belonged to a forerunner of what is now the Presbyterian Church (USA), was an honors graduate of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. In his ordination trial he was questioned about women and said that because he believed the Bible forbade women to hold authority in the church he could not participate in an ordination ritual….Coupled with a decision allowing a Maryland presbytery to install a minister who didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, at least eight churches and some prominent theologians in Pittsburgh and Beaver-Butler presbyteries left for the new Presbyterian Church in America….

    The case still reverberates, said Charles Partee, emeritus professor of church history at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. It marked a shift from creeds to constitution for defining the church’s beliefs, he said.

    “You didn’t have to believe everything in the creed. Of course, the constitution cannot be scrupled. It must be obeyed,” he said.”

    What defines us?

    Creeds or constitution?

  21. Dear BJS bloggers,

    Why do we have bylaws? To restrict the power of bishops through the will of delegate synods. If you get rid of bylaws or ignore them, the bishops become uncontrollable tyrants. The Stephanites learned this the hard way–as also did just recently the Mars Hill Superchurch in Seattle. Bylaws and Constitutions can always be revised. They rarely have directly contradicted Scripture in LCMS history, but on occasion they pave the way for unbiblical results. So change them! Don’t be a lazy bum! Get to work and start submitting overtures to district and synod. Tim Wood’s overture project, if it gets enough $ support, might really give some added afterburner thrust to LCMS overtures this time.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  22. Martin R. Noland :
    Dear BJS bloggers,
    Why do we have bylaws? To restrict the power of bishops through the will of delegate synods. If you get rid of bylaws or ignore them, the bishops become uncontrollable tyrants.

    But they already have become uncontrollable tyrants as a result of the bylaws. Laws are harmful if checks & balances don’t exist. The LCMS is hard broke due to king-like DPs that are held accountable to no one and refuse to stand for the Word and Confessions.

  23. @Martin R. Noland #21
    I don’t know anyone arguing against having bylaws. That’s not the question. The question is, that when “councils can and do err,” what do we do? We have two choices:

    1. We must obey men/bylaws/constitution rather than God and hope to change it later.

    2. “We must obey God rather than men.”

    Dr. Nolan stated in another post that cases can be very complicated. I don’t think anyone doubts that – from a legal perspective. From a gospel perspective, however, it is very simple. The man preaching heresy must be admonished twice and if he does not repent, rejected.

    To approach by motivation and means of the Gospel, is not legalistic, targeting, or even just plain mean. As Matt Mills so eloquently pointed out, and in my view must become the mantra, these false teachers don’t just harm themselves. They have victims. Those victims are the sheep led astray to their peril.

    To allow bylaws to trump clear Scripture is, to say the least, pure legalism. Bad bylaws need changed, and that change must come from the synod membership. No one argues differently. The question remains, when we have bad bylaws and between conventions, do we obey God or men?

  24. @R.D. #23

    …but who decides what is heresy?  There are some sincerely held different interpretations of “clear Scripture” within LCMS.  Hence the need for (messy) adjudication.

  25. John,

    Do not give up on the authority and perspicuity of Scripture so quickly. This is not the Roman church. We trust that Scripture is clear and can lead us truth.

    The problem is not a need for a judicial procedure. The problem is that some have turned away from Scripture to emotion, felt needs and sociology to guide us.

    Don’t ever give up the ability of God’s word to lead us to truth.

  26. Dear BJS Bloggers,

    John Rixe’s comment #24 is a good example of the Liberal Protestant appeal to differing interpretations in order to “whack” at the clarity of Scripture. I am not saying he is a Liberal Protestant, but the argument has come down into our century through them–whether or not he knows that. I don’t know who Rixe is, whether he is a pseudonym, a troll, or what–so I can’t judge his comment #24 more favorably, or harsher, than what I see there.

    This goes back to Luther’s debate with Erasmus over the bondage of the will (see Luther’s book “On the Bondage of the Will”). Erasmus said that Scriptures are unclear, because so many people disagree about them. Luther said that Scriptures are clear in doctrinal matters, and the hearts of men are evil and opposed to Scripture–what he called the “whore reason.” This is the Lutheran explanation for differing “interpretations” in matters of doctrine. Liberals Protestants hate the Lutheran position because their minds are captive to the “whore reason,” by definition, since they are in essence and historically “rationalists.”

    Pastor Rossow is absolutely correct in comment #25, and all our pastors need to hammer that point home–it is not a minor matter. The authority of Scripture depends on it.

    Adjudication in the LCMS does not decide doctrine. Doctrine is determined by our Constitution which predicates the Scriptures and Confessions as our doctrinal norms; and then at the synodical level by conventions if necessary. Adjudication applies doctrine to individual cases; just as civil courts apply civil laws to individual cases. Adjudication in the LCMS does not decide doctrine, and there is a bylaw that says that specifically, to the effect that a decision “has no precedential value.”

    As an example of the rare unbiblical bylaw in the LCMS, I would point to the Kieschnick-Benke excuse clause in the bylaws (or was it a mandatory re-interpretation of the bylaws by the CCM-?-I don’t remember without my office files and library). It was adopted in order to justify Benke’s actions at Yankee Stadium, through his “supervisor’s approval.” Basically it said that any church-worker who gets his “supervisor’s” permission to do something wrong can’t be charged with doing anything wrong. This bylaw was later deleted (or the CCM ruling overruled). This example shows you the type of leadership we had been dealing with in the LCMS–basically amoral people. What a breath of fresh air it was when Harrison was elected!

    I see this post is going to fall off the bottom, so this is my last comment in this thread.

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  27. I guess the question that keeps me awake at night is this. If it is so broken that it cannot be fixed, what’s an orthodox pastor or layman to do who knows that they now belong to a heterodox synod? The LCMS heterodoxy has been going on for years. When is enough, enough? 🙁

  28. @Martin R. Noland #26

    The man preaching heresy must be admonished twice and if he does not repent, rejected.  

    Agreed -the adjudication is needed for orderly formal rejection of the preacher, not to define doctrine.  

    btw…real name…real person…troll not intentional 🙂

  29. @Lifelong Lutheran #29

    It’s bizarre because the SP is well aware of the rampant heterodoxy in the church, yet he:

    -writes an outreach pep-talk article.
    -talks about the need for pastors to “Up their game.” No mention of churches like Crosspoint allowing the laity to preach.
    -determined that it’s time for us to repent of uncharitable language directed toward one another without any rebuke of the error that has permeated the synod. He even mentions close[d] communion when he knows a vast number of LCMS churches don’t actually practice close[d] communion.
    -stated, “Let’s hold one another accountable for clear, compelling, biblical and Law/Gospel sermons.” Are you kidding me? This is as bizarre as it gets. Don’t you find it ironic that the man who refuses to publically rebuke organizations like FiveTwo is telling us to just get along and also to hold each other accountable.

    He writes an article about the decline in numbers, but in no way mentions the decline and degradation of practice and doctrine. He points the finger at televangelists, but not at our own significant issues.

    It’s almost as if he’s calling for those of us who speak out against heterodox practice and doctrine within the church to repent. It’s almost as if he’s saying, “We just all need to get along.”

    I think he needs to repent for failing to publically rebuke and admonish organizations like FiveTwo in accordance with the Large Catechism.

  30. I agree that Pastor Harrison needs ro rebuke heterodox practice in the synod such as open communion and FiveTwo. But that’s not what this particular article was about. I do think that he was subtly pointing out that methods that have been tried to increase membership such as praise bands and more open communion have not increased membership. We all need to pray for him as there are no easy answers to the problems in the synod. He’s doing a better job than most would.

  31. @Lifelong Lutheran #34

    I do pray for him, and our synod, all the time. I also thank God for all the faithful men who stand steadfast for the purity of scripture, doctrine, and practice. Regardless, in my opinion, the article was as messed up as a football bat. Wrong message at the wrong time.

  32. @Lifelong Lutheran #34
    I do think that he was subtly pointing out that methods that have been tried to increase membership such as praise bands and more open communion have not increased membership.

    It was too subtle for me, and I said so (in other words), thinking the message was going here.
    When I realized it wasn’t (“it required moderation”) I asked if unpleasant truth would be censored, like “5/2” does. So I will not be surprised not to see my opinion on line. ;\

    It’s past my bedtime. (To hear my exiled Pastor where he is preaching tomorrow, I will have to be up and at’em at sunrise.) G’nite all!

  33. @Rev. George Naylor #16
    @Martin R. Noland #18

    Thank you, gentlemen, for correcting my misunderstanding about President Emeritus Kieschnick’s role regarding the current DRP debacle. I was so aware of his staunch support for it that I didn’t realize it was not him but President Emeritus Bohlman who had created this monster.

    WORTH REPEATING

    R.D. :
    Bad bylaws need changed, and that change must come from the synod membership. No one argues differently. The question remains, when we have bad bylaws and between conventions, do we obey God or men?

  34. Randy :
    It’s almost as if he’s calling for those of us who speak out against heterodox practice and doctrine within the church to repent. It’s almost as if he’s saying, “We just all need to get along.”
    I think he needs to repent for failing to publically rebuke and admonish organizations like FiveTwo in accordance with the Large Catechism.

    Yes, and “It’s Time” for a stronger rebuke of those practicing open Communion.

  35. Pastor Ted Crandall :

    Randy :It’s almost as if he’s calling for those of us who speak out against heterodox practice and doctrine within the church to repent. It’s almost as if he’s saying, “We just all need to get along.”I think he needs to repent for failing to publically rebuke and admonish organizations like FiveTwo in accordance with the Large Catechism.

    Yes, and “It’s Time” for a stronger rebuke of those practicing open Communion.

    This is most certainly true!

  36. @Randy #39
    Yes, and “It’s Time” for a stronger rebuke of those practicing open Communion.

    This is most certainly true!

    This morning I attended a church I and others were invited out of about 15 years ago, because of a difference over open communion and “praise” services which were just being learned there.
    [My latest CRM Pastor was preaching.]

    Having carefully taught the membership to like “entertainment” church diminished the congregation by about half. A ‘mega wannabe’ could do it better (and was closer to their homes).
    They were encouraged by district to embrace “church growth”; district is not likely to brag about the result…. or learn from it either!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.