Skip to content

Is this guy being honest?

February 17, 2010

Like I’ve touched upon in previous posts, there comes a time when people make up their mind, that they’ll go to lengths to prove to themselves that they were right all along.  I’m witnessing one such example right now, in Daniel Spratlin, a seminary student at a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I’ve noticed in Daniel’s lengthy replies, that he tends to spin things (twist arguments, omit points I made, brings up straw men to distract, etc.) to fit his views, and then accuses others of misinterpreting statements.  Here is a classic example of him doing so.

More eisegetical interpretation can be found in Bacchiocchi next paragraph:

Finally, if as generally presumed, it was the “weak” believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would classify himself with the “weak” since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4, 19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views himself as “strong” (“we who are strong”—Rom 15:1); thus, he could not have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over days.

Do you see what he’s done here? Bacchiocchi equates Sabbath observance with the “weak” when the text does not do so. Yes, Paul observed the Sabbath (though he “reasoned” in the synagogues, not worshiped)  but, because he calls himself “strong,” he clearly did not “esteem” that day above any other. Just like I observe Sunday worship but I do not “esteem” that day above any other. Sabbath observance does not, ipso facto, put one into the “weak” category as Bacchiocchi would have you think. What makes one “weak” is “esteeming” one day above another whether that day be Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc. (emphasis mine)

Bacchiocchi clearly was making a hypothetical statement to prove a point (notice IF), yet Daniel claims that Bacchiocchi IS saying Sabbath observance = “weak” believers, when that wasn’t Bacchiocchi’s point at all. Do you see what Daniel just did there?

He either misread the quote, or Daniel is blatantly twisting Bacchiocchi’s words. However, since this isn’t the only instance, it’s seems to me that he’s doing the latter.

Here is another example of Daniel grasping at straws.  He tries to discredit Dr. Bacchiocchi to lessen the impact of his argument, turning this from a theological discussion to slander of characters and institutions:

Glenn then goes on to provide the interpretation of “noted church historian, Samuele Bacchiocchi.” I’m going to get to his thoughts momentarily but first I want to digress a bit. Folks, there is no such thing as a SDA scholar. They just don’t exist. You won’t find scholars of any kind in the heterodox “churches.” Why?Because no degree-awarding, reputable, accredited school of higher learning would ever allow them to graduate. It just does not happen…[emphasis mine]

Oh really?!?! So how did these Adventist Professors graduate then? Carlos Martin, PhD or Jud Lake ThD , both from schools Daniel mentions below.  Just two examples from one of the 13 Adventist universities in North America. There are many more examples.  Again, Daniel doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  He continues…

Let’s look at Mr. Bacchiocchi for example.

Dr. Bacchiocchi, pay the man his proper respects.

  • B. A. degree in Theology at Newbold College in England (a SDA college).
  • M. A. and a B. D. degrees at Andrews University Theological Seminary in Michigan (a SDA seminary).
  • Doctoratus at Pontifical Gregorian University (a Jesuit university).
  • Awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI.

Do you see any orthodox institutions there? Me either. The only school I recognize is PGU and not for good reasons. Reputable institutions include SBTS, SWBTS, SEBTS, WTS, WTS Cali., RTS, Talbot, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Duke, Oxford, Cambridge, St. Andrews, etc.

Here’s my personal favorite, showing how biased and ignorant he really is:

Again, people, there is no such thing as a SDA scholar or a reputable SDA school. They do not exist.

Wow.  Who are you Daniel Spratlin to make such a bold claim?  Since when did Daniel become the Simon Cowell of Theologians and Seminaries?  Maybe Daniel didn’t see what other scholars had to say about Bacchiocchi’s books, nevermind that the first guy is from a school mentioned above:

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/comments/

Bacchiocchi has sold more books and has received more acclaim than Daniel will ever have.  He then goes on to list theologians he “respects” likely because they hold on to the same views as Daniel.  The funny thing is, he probably wouldn’t last if he actually had a discussions with some actual students in Adventist seminaries.  The fact that he’s having trouble with me is telling enough.

My conclusion of Daniel is that he’s a zealous seminary student (nothing wrong with that), with obviously a lot of time on his hands, and an agenda to prove that his reformed theology is right at all costs, even at the expense of truth.  The fact that I, with no formal theological training, am giving Daniel, a Masters seminary student, a run for his money says a lot.  The Truth is the Truth, and anyone can plainly see it.  You can have all the theological degrees in the world and still be wrong, no matter how much you try to spin and twist things to fit your view.

So I see no point in further discussions with him, as it is likely he’ll just misrepresent and spin whatever arguments I put forward and continue to accuse me of being blinded, when he himself is guilty of the same thing he accuses me of.  Some words of wisdom for Daniel in Matt 7:

5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I’ll also take the advice from Jesus, and end this discussion in order to avoid getting the Truth trampled on by pigs and getting torn to pieces:

6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Why? Because I can’t trust Daniel, a professed Christian, to be honest and fair in these dialogues.  So to answer the title question, is this guy being honest?  Sadly no.  His website even has a little story which sums up nicely the extremes he’ll take when “defending” his faith (my comments in red):

EVEN MORE ABOUT ME

I like to think that people would say that I am extremely nice. If you are my friend, I will go out of my way for you, no matter what (just only friends? everyone else can go to hell? Didn’t Jesus go out of his way to help EVERYONE?). That’s just how I roll. Another example of how I roll is when I was 13. I was at school and there was this random picture of Jesus in a book some kid was reading. He looked at it and said, “ha…Jesus was a tool!” I heard this, glared at him and screamed at the top of my lungs, “JESUS SAVES !!!” I then lunged across the room at him and punched him in the nose. (I bet the kid repented and was baptized after, and they wonder why the Reformed movement is shrinking.) Hey, what can I say. I stick up for my Lord and Savior.  Wouldn’t you?  (I wouldn’t do it that way) Why would you want to be against Jesus? [emphasis mine].

Does that sound like something Jesus would do?  For someone who claims to have Christ in his life, it sure doesn’t show.

6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:6)

20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matt 7)

Like I’ve touched upon in previous posts, there comes a time when people make up their mind, that they’ll go to lengths to prove to themselves that they were right all along.  I’m witnessing one such example right now, in Daniel Spratlin, a seminary student at a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I’ve noticed in Daniel’s lengthy replies, that he tends to twist things to fit his views, and then accuses others of misinterpreting statements.  Here is a classic example of him doing so.

More eisegetical interpretation can be found in Bacchiocchi next paragraph:

Finally, if as generally presumed, it was the “weak” believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would classify himself with the “weak” since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4, 19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views himself as “strong” (“we who are strong”—Rom 15:1); thus, he could not have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over days.

Do you see what he’s done here? Bacchiocchi equates Sabbath observance with the “weak” when the text does not do so. Yes, Paul observed the Sabbath (though he “reasoned” in the synagogues, not worshiped)  but, because he calls himself “strong,” he clearly did not “esteem” that day above any other. Just like I observe Sunday worship but I do not “esteem” that day above any other. Sabbath observance does not, ipso facto, put one into the “weak” category as Bacchiocchi would have you think. What makes one “weak” is “esteeming” one day above another whether that day be Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc. (emphasis mine)

Bacchiocchi clearly was making a hypothetical statement to prove a point (notice IF), yet Daniel claims that Bacchiocchi IS saying Sabbath observance = “weak” believers, when that wasn’t Bacchiocchi’s point at all.

He either misread the quote, or Daniel is blatantly twisting Bacchiocchi’s words. However, since this isn’t the only instance, it’s seems to me that he’s doing the latter.

Here is another example of Daniel grasping at straws.  He tries to discredit Dr. Bacchiocchi to lessen the impact of his argument, turning this from a theological discussion to slander of characters and institutions:

Glenn then goes on to provide the interpretation of “noted church historian, Samuele Bacchiocchi.” I’m going to get to his thoughts momentarily but first I want to digress a bit. Folks, there is no such thing as a SDA scholar. They just don’t exist. You won’t find scholars of any kind in the heterodox “churches.” Why?Because no degree-awarding, reputable, accredited school of higher learning would ever allow them to graduate. It just does not happen…[emphasis mine]

Oh really?!?! So how did these Adventist Professors graduate then? Carlos Martin, PhD or Jud Lake ThD , both from schools Daniel mentions below.  Just two examples from one of the 13 Adventist universities in North America. There are many more examples.  Again, Daniel doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  He continues…

Let’s look at Mr. Bacchiocchi for example.

  • B. A. degree in Theology at Newbold College in England (a SDA college).
  • M. A. and a B. D. degrees at Andrews University Theological Seminary in Michigan (a SDA seminary).
  • Doctoratus at Pontifical Gregorian University (a Jesuit university).
  • Awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI.

Do you see any orthodox institutions there? Me either. The only school I recognize is PGU and not for good reasons. Reputable institutions include SBTS, SWBTS, SEBTS, WTS, WTS Cali., RTS, Talbot, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Duke, Oxford, Cambridge, St. Andrews, etc.

Funny how he lists Harvard and Oxford,  the same institutions known as  hotbeds of evolution and Darwinism? The same schools that produced the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?  I know their theological schools are a separate entity, I just have to wonder how effective their theological program is when the building “next door” produces some of the world’s most influential atheists.

Here’s my personal favorite, showing how biased and ignorant he really is:

Again, people, there is no such thing as a SDA scholar or a reputable SDA school. They do not exist.

Wow.  Who are you Daniel Spratlin to make such a bold claim?  Since when did Daniel become the Simon Cowell of Theologians and Seminaries?  Maybe Daniel didn’t see what other scholars had to say about Bacchiocchi’s books, nevermind that the first guy is from a school mentioned above:

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/comments/

Bacchiocchi has sold more books and has received more acclaim than Daniel will ever have.  He then goes on to list theologians he “respects” likely because they hold on to the same views as Daniel.  The funny thing is, he probably wouldn’t last if he actually had a discussions with some actual students in Adventist seminaries.  The fact that he’s having trouble with me is telling enough.

My conclusion of Daniel is that he’s a zealous seminary student (nothing wrong with that), with obviously a lot of time on his hands, and an agenda to prove that his reformed theology is right at all costs, even at the expense of truth.  The fact that I, with no formal theological training, am giving Daniel, a Masters seminary student, a run for his money says a lot.  The Truth is the Truth, and anyone can plainly see it.  You can have all the theological degrees in the world and still be wrong, no matter how much you try to spin and twist things to fit your view.

So I see no point in further discussions with him, as it is likely he’ll just misrepresent and spin whatever arguments I put forward and continue to accuse me of being blinded, when he himself is guilty of the same thing he accuses me of.  Some words of wisdom for Daniel in Matt 7:

5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I’ll also take the advice from Jesus, and end this discussion in order to avoid getting the Truth trampled on by pigs and getting torn to pieces:

6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Why? Sadly, I can’t trust Daniel who is a professed Christian, to be honest and fair in this discussion.

Advertisements
22 Comments leave one →
  1. Don R. permalink
    February 17, 2010 5:12 pm

    lol I love how he put words in Dr. B’s mouth… and that there’s no such thing as an ‘Adventist scholar’ or reputable SDA school… hahaha… this guy’s ignorance cracks me up.

    • February 18, 2010 1:30 am

      Don – You can’t put words in someone’s mouth if you quote directly from them. The logic of you people is quite astounding.

      Thanks for playing.

  2. Victoria permalink
    February 17, 2010 5:25 pm

    Hi Glenn, awesome posts. Thanks for the link, I read the arguments on both sides and judging by the guy’s tone, he seems angry or something. He does seem to know the history and culture of the times, but your view makes more sense. Like you said, it seems like he’s grasping at straws trying to stretch passages to fit one view.

    You’re right, I don’t see how Romans 14 could be about the Sabbath.

  3. February 17, 2010 5:37 pm

    I guarantee that neither Glenn, Don, or Victoria have read all 13 posts in the series. Take off the blinders people. Glenn doesn’t exegete anything.

    • February 18, 2010 9:43 am

      I’ve read all of them, even your latest one. Vitriol? My writing? In relation to your posts, I’d say this post was a love letter. This was not a personal at all, just highlighting the lengths you go to defend your views.

      Let’s look at Bacchiochi’s quote, it seems your comprehension is off.

      “Finally, if as generally presumed, it was the “weak” believer who observed the Sabbath,…”

      In other words, “If we assume Paul equated “weak” believers observe the Sabbath”

      “…Paul would classify himself with the “weak” since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4, 19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views himself as “strong” (“we who are strong”—Rom 15:1);…”

      Key word HOWEVER.

      …”thus, he could not have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over days.”

      Using simple logic, we come to this conclusion on Bacchiocchi’s point:

      Since Paul considers himself strong,
      Paul observed the Sabbath,
      Therefore, Sabbath observance =/= (doesn’t equate) to being “weak”.

      I don’t know how you missed that point. Maybe you should take the log out of your eye first before telling others to take off their “blinders”. You’re the perfect example of what Jesus was talking about in Matt 7.

      • February 18, 2010 11:55 am

        You just proved you didn’t read anything. Or, at the very least, didn’t comprehend. I paste the following:

        “So why did Bacchiocchi even make the point if it was hypothetical and, therefore, a non-point or non-argument? It didn’t prove anything as I showed. But Glenn commits a logical fallacy. He assumes that what Bacchiocchi was, in fact, hypothetical. But was it? No, it wasn’t. The “weak” were the Sabbatarians and the “strong” were not. That’s a fact. Paul clearly attests to that and counts himself among the “strong.” So even if Bacchiocchi was being hypothetical he would still be wrong. You can’t be hypothetical about actual facts. Would it make sense if I argued “If you believe that the Sun is  hot, then you are wrong because, as generally presumed, it is cold”? Would I be able to get away with making a counterfactual statement by claiming that it was hypothetical? Of course not.”

        And again I highlight your utter refusal to ever engage me on the text.

      • February 18, 2010 12:01 pm

        And your logic is fatally flawed because you assume that Sabbath observance means “esteeming” one day over another which is not supported by the text. Again I paste:

        “Do you see what he’s done here? Bacchiocchi equates Sabbath observance with the “weak” when the text does not do so. Yes, Paul observed the Sabbath (though he “reasoned” in the synagogues, not worshiped)  but, because he calls himself “strong,” he clearly did not “esteem” that day above any other. Just like I observe Sunday worship but I do not “esteem” that day above any other. Sabbath observance does not, ipso facto, put one into the “weak” category as Bacchiocchi would have you think. What makes one “weak” is “esteeming” one day above another whether that day be Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.”

      • February 18, 2010 12:36 pm

        Are these not your words? I even underlined it in blue above

        “Do you see what he’s done here? Bacchiocchi equates Sabbath observance with the “weak” when the text does not do so.””

        You SAID Bacchiocchi equates Sabbath observance with the “weak”, when clearly I just showed you above he DIDN’T.

        Again, this is Bacchiochi’s point, I’ll rephrase Bacchiochi’s statement in a logical formula so hopefully you’ll understand this time.

        IF Sabbath observance = weak, (like most presume the verse to be about,)

        However, Paul = Strong,
        Paul observed (esteemed) the Sabbath.

        Therefore Sabbath observance = strong
        and Sabbath observance CANNOT = weak,

        That is the gist of Bacchiocchi’s statement. How hard is that to understand?

  4. February 18, 2010 12:44 pm

    “Do you see what he’s done here? Bacchiocchi equates Sabbath observance with the “weak” when the text does not do so. Yes, Paul observed the Sabbath (though he “reasoned” in the synagogues, not worshiped) but, because he calls himself “strong,” he clearly did not “esteem” that day above any other.

    The Sabbath was and still is important Paul. You’re right though, “esteeming” doesn’t necessarily mean Sabbath observance. “Esteem” in Romans 14 refers to days of fasting (v 6, eats, does not eat.).

    Whoa whoa, am I reading this correctly now? Because before you were insisting that Paul was talking about Sabbath observance in this text, and now you reverse your position?

    “And your logic is fatally flawed because you assume that Sabbath observance means “esteeming” one day over another which is not supported by the text.

    Looks like someone did a 180. These are your words in Part 4 of your series:

    “Glenn does two things here:

    1. Neglects to learn the context – cultural and otherwise.
    2. Adopts an overly-literalistic hermeneutic (e.g. the passage says “day” and not “Sabbath”).

    The weak thought some days were more important than others.
    Given the Jewish background here (see v. 14), the day that is supremely in view is certainly the Sabbath. The strong think every day is the same.”

    Now I can say that you agree with me that there is no concrete evidence in the text to show that esteeming days in Romans 14 doesn’t mean the Sabbath, Finally! 🙂 Remember, my whole point is the Chapter is about FASTING and food related observances, nothing about holy days.

    • February 18, 2010 1:41 pm

      Not at all Glenn. You’re reading meaning into my words (how much more so with God’s).

      The text states that esteeming one day above another is weak. Now, it’s obvious that the day in view is the Sabbath for the many reasons that I’ve given (which you haven’t responded to) but it is wrong to then say that Sabbath observance is weak. As I’ve said before, I observe Sunday but I do not esteem that day above any other. The same was true with Paul.

      • February 18, 2010 2:21 pm

        “The text states that esteeming one day above another is weak. ”

        Where in Romans 14? I don’t seem to find that passage saying observing one day is weak. “Weak” is only tied to food, yet you’re putting added meaning into the texts.

        Again, you’re accusing me of reading meaning into something when you’re yourself are guilty of the very accusation.

  5. February 18, 2010 1:34 pm

    Glenn – I’m going to try once more and I’m going to go slow for you.

    You start your syllogism with an obvious counterfactual (Sabbath observance = weak). Then you go on to “prove” that to be untrue and claim victory.

    I could do the same using your strawman formula:

    If the Sun = cold
    However, proximity = temp. increase
    Therefore, the Sun does not = cold

    I’ve started my logical appeal by stating a counterfactual. There is no reason to attempt to prove a properly basic belief.

    In your case, the text never equates Sabbath observance with being weak yet you start your proof with that exact statement.

  6. February 18, 2010 2:41 pm

    Sigh. I can’t believe you’re still hanging onto the notion that this is about holy days, when CLEARLY, the context of the chapter is about food and fasting. The only mention of ‘observing days’ is obviously tied to fasting.

    5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (ESV)

    The rest of the chapter continues about food. Obviously, abstaining from food is also known as fasting. Fasting is a personal matter, you can fast whenever you want, hence “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”

    If you say it was about holy days, why didn’t Paul continue it later in the letter,

    (v17) “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”

    He would have said “eating and drinking and Sabbaths/holy days/whatever”.

    Or verse 20 would have said:

    “20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.” (and Sabbaths) But he didn’t. Why, because he clearly wasn’t referring to Sabbath observance.

    Thats why the last verses still talk about food,

    “21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”

    I don’t know if it can get any clearer. If you can’t see this, I think you still have your “blinders” on.

    • February 18, 2010 3:01 pm

      Until you respond to part 5 of my 13 part series addressing ALL OF YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS I will assume you are willfully ignoring facts that counter you. This will be my last comment on your site. I will continue to highlight your egregious errors on my site and on the CARM website. If you wish to continue please contact me and I will set up a time with Matt to debate this on the radio.

  7. February 18, 2010 2:54 pm

    “Where in Romans 14? I don’t seem to find that passage saying observing one day is weak. “Weak” is only tied to food, yet you’re putting added meaning into the texts.”

    Read Romans 14. The one who restricts himself is called weak. The one who does not is called strong.

    • February 18, 2010 3:15 pm

      Yeah, the one who only eats vegetables. Doesn’t extend to the rest of the chapter.

      Read this, hopefully it’ll help you understand the context more.
      http://www.thercg.org/questions/p085.a.html

      Here’s some more background on the context:

      “A number of Jews of that time would often hold a semi-fast twice in the week (Luke 18:12). Some would also fast during the fifth and seventh months (Zech. 7:4-7). They were divided as to exactly when to fast. The Gentile converts were also divided as to what days to abstain from certain foods. [Hence the controversy Bacchiocchi was talking about] Because of the differing backgrounds of these people, they could not agree on which days to do this. There were divisions in the congregation. Jesus taught us that fasting is something that is done without making it obvious to others (Matt. 6:16). It is a personal matter, between an individual and God.”

      Paul was reemphasizing it. It’s a personal matter, the Sabbath isn’t.

      • Victoria permalink
        February 22, 2010 3:30 pm

        Good points Glenn,

        I reread Romans 14. I really don’t know how you can get the Sabbath from the chapter. He’s definitely talking about food. Daniel needs to lighten up it seems.

  8. Anonymous permalink
    February 2, 2011 10:35 am

    Daniel is not a Christian. He is a phony. A master manipulator. He is a sick, twisted person, with serious mental issues. He is using Jesus and his church as a cover up to his cruel intentions. Run a background check. You will find he has been in and out of jail for identity theft and impersonating police officers. Even pulling over a female and telling her he will let her off with a warning if she would give him a kiss. Disgusting. You may even be lucky enough to come across his LordDaniel website where he claims to be from some European country where his prestigious family reined. PLEASE! And furthermore, when he was 13, the slang “tool” was not used. He was not involved in anything to do with Jesus Christ until AFTER he was arrested and in prison for two years, somewhere around his early 20s.

    • February 3, 2011 11:32 am

      I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. I’ll give Daniel the benefit of the doubt until you can substantiate your claims. Sure he does use some misleading tactics in presenting his arguments, but to go as far as making some of the claims you’ve made on his character seems a bit far-fetched to me.

      • Anonymous permalink
        July 20, 2015 6:30 am

        Google his name. Check Cobb Co arrest records. He did not graduate from any college as he was arrested for stealing the identities of staff and students. He has no degree. It’s not hard to find this information. However, regretfully family knows best.

  9. Jim Reynolds permalink
    June 22, 2012 12:42 am

    Daniel is the typical christain following traditional taught today. They will try and defend themselves everyway they can. They will not admit to being lied to all these years, from some loving people ( Father, Mother, Family and everybody elese.) Then they are afraid to step out and stand for truth, because of the hurt people will turn to them. They will hate for his name sake. ( Gees, I think I heard that somewhere in the Bible. I thank God the Father, and Jesus the Son, for opening my eyes and put me out front. I will go down like Polycarp did.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: