Lessons from History: Ignaz Semmelweis, Unwashed Hands and Ignored Evidence

Ignaz Semmelweis

The tale of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th-century Hungarian physician, is a poignant lesson from history about the risks of ignoring empirical evidence. Semmelweis, often referred to as the ‘savior of mothers’, made a groundbreaking discovery: that childbed fever, a leading cause of death among women in childbirth, could be significantly reduced if doctors simply washed their hands with chlorinated lime solutions. Despite solid data supporting his assertion, Semmelweis’s peers rejected his claims, reluctant to accept the notion that they could be the carriers of disease. Tragically, the subsequent years saw egregious and unnecessary loss of life, only to have Semmelweis’s hygiene protocol later adopted as the standard.

Incredibly, despite clear evidence, and over a century of progress, studies show that healthcare professionals today still frequently neglect hand hygiene. This lapse not only perpetuates the risk of infections but also symbolizes a broader issue: the disregard for clear evidence in professional practices (and cf. Compassionomics).

Drawing an analogy, the field of software development offers a strikingly similar scenario. Despite decades of research suggesting that management practices are the rock upon which software projects so often founder, many developers and organisations still fail to address the issue. The reasons might vary, ranging from tight schedules to a lack of understanding of their importance, but the result remains the same: sub-optimal outcomes that could otherwise be avoided.

This recurring pattern of ignoring evidence in favor of established practices or convenience is not just an issue in medicine or software development, but can be found across various fields. It underscores the deeply ingrained human tendencies of resistance to evidence and pervasive cognitive biases. We often favour our existing assumptions and beliefs, even when confronted with compelling evidence that suggests we might better choose to think or act differently.

In conclusion, the case of Ignaz Semmelweis serves as a stark reminder of the importance of embracing evidence-based practices, however uncomfortable or inconvenient they may be. Both in medicine and software development, and indeed in every field of human endeavor, we might choose to keep our minds open to new evidence, be ready to question our established practices, and be willing to change.

The stakes are high: the health of our patients, the quality of our software, the progress of our societies, and ultimately, the advancement of our collective human knowledge.

It is clear that to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, we must learn to balance our intuition and experience with the humility to acknowledge and adapt when evidence points to a better way. It is a lesson that Dr. Semmelweis, with his chlorinated lime solutions, would want us to remember.

Empowering Communication: A Philosophy for Success

Imagine a workplace where honesty and directness are not only accepted but celebrated, and communication is clear and respectful. This is the world of both Radical Candor and Nonviolent Communication.

The concept of Radical Candor has been widely reported, but we can choose to understand that it’s not the same as “brutal honesty.” Radical Candor is a philosophy that emphasises clear communication, feedback, and ongoing strengthening of interpersonal relationships. It encourages people to provide guidance and support to their each other, while also holding each other accountable for their performance. Radical Candor is all about being honest and direct, while still showing empathy and understanding.

In contrast, Nonviolent Communication, also known as NVC or Compassionate Communication, is a communication process developed by psychologist Marshall Rosenberg. It focuses on identifying and expressing feelings and needs in a way that fosters mutual understanding and connection. The goal of NVC is to create a shared understanding between individuals by exploring and acknowledging their needs.

While both Radical Candor and Nonviolent Communication emphasise the importance of clear communication and empathy, they differ in their approach. Radical Candor encourages direct communication, even if it’s uncomfortable or difficult, while still maintaining a level of compassion and care for the individual. On the other hand, NVC emphasises direct identification and expression of needs in a way that fosters mutual understanding, compassion and respect.

In summary, Radical Candor and Nonviolent Communication both seek to improve interpersonal communication and relationships. Both approaches have their strengths, take your pick, or apply both in concert!

A Gentler Approach to Culture Change

Culture change can be one of the most challenging yet rewarding initiatives that a business can undertake. It entails a significant shift in the way that people think, work, and interact, which can often result in resistance, confusion, and frustration. However, a gentler approach to culture change can help to mitigate these challenges by fostering collaboration, openness, and a shared sense of purpose.

One of the first steps in a gentler approach to culture change is to involve people in the process. This means creating opportunities for people to contribute to the development of the new culture, to voice their opinions and concerns, and to participate in the change process. By involving people in the process, they feel valued and supported, and they are more likely to embrace the change.

Another aspect of a gentler approach to culture change is to focus on the positive aspects of the change. Instead of dwelling on the negative aspects of the current culture, organisations may choose to focus on the benefits of a new culture. This can help create a shared sense of purpose, which can motivate people to work towards the new culture. By emphasising the positive aspects of the change, organisations can create a more optimistic and collaborative atmosphere.

Communication also helps in a gentler approach to culture change. Organisations benefit from nurturing a clear and compelling vision of the new culture and from seeing it communicated frequently and consistently. This can be done through town hall meetings, email updates, and other channels of communication. By keeping people enrolled and engaged throughout the change process, organisations can build trust and encourage buy-in.

Don’t underestimate the power of attending to folks’ needs in the context of culture change. What do people need from the new culture? Attending to everyone’s needs makes it that much more likely that people will reciprocate and attend to the needs of the organisation, too.

Finally, making support and resources available during the culture change process means providing training and development opportunities, creating support networks, and offering mentoring or coaching. By providing these resources, organisations can help employees navigate the change and feel supported and involved throughout the process.

In conclusion, a gentler approach to culture change can help to mitigate the challenges associated with changing an organization’s culture. By involving employees in the process, focusing on the positive aspects of the change, communicating effectively, sensitivity to needs, and providing support and resources, leaders can create a more collaborative and optimistic atmosphere.

Steeped in Violence: How Workplace Aggression Contributes to Society’s Problem

Violence is a pervasive issue in our society. In fact, the workplace is one of the most common settings where violence takes place. This is not just physical violence, but also psychological aggression, such as bullying, harassment, and discrimination. Unfortunately, this workplace violence has a ripple effect on society as a whole, perpetuating a cycle of violence that affects individuals and communities both.

The consequences of violence in the workplace are severe. For employees, it can lead to emotional distress, physical injury, and decreased job satisfaction. For employers, workplace violence can lead to increased insurance costs, decreased employee retention, and decreased employee morale. This creates a vicious cycle, where the violence in the workplace contributes to the violence in society, and vice versa.

Moreover, workplace violence is not limited to specific industries. It can occur in any type of workplace, from a construction site to a corporate office. This is due, in part, to the cultural norms and values that are prevalent in our society. For example, in many cultures, there is a belief that aggression and dominance are desirable traits in a leader, leading to a workplace environment that is prone to violence.

Similarly, cultural norms may also dictate that employees should be passive, leading to an environment where violence is tolerated and unreported.

The culture of violence in the workplace also extends to the wider society. For example, those who are subjected to violence in the workplace are more likely to become victims of violence in their personal lives.

In addition, exposure to violence in the workplace can desensitize individuals to violence, leading to a more violent society. For example, individuals who experience bullying or harassment in the workplace may be more likely to engage in violent behavior in their personal lives.

The cycle of violence between the workplace and society is not easily broken. To address this issue, we might look to changing the cultural norms and values that perpetuate violence in the workplace and society. Additionally, we might choose to provide support and resources to individuals who have experienced workplace violence, such as counseling, legal assistance, and simple compassion

In conclusion, violence in the workplace is a significant issue that has far-reaching consequences. By addressing workplace violence, we can help to break the cycle of violence that affects individuals and communities, and create a safer and more respectful work environment. The key to this is changing the cultural norms and values that perpetuate violence in our society, and promoting a culture of respect and nonviolence.

The Great Deception: Truth is, Working For the Man is Unfulfilling and Oppressive

The idea that work is fulfilling and liberating has been touted as a central tenet of the capitalist system for generations. The notion is that work provides people with a sense of purpose and self-worth, and that it is a means of obtaining financial independence and personal freedom. This concept has been perpetuated by those in power, who have a vested interest in keeping people virtually enslaved. The reality, however, is that for many, work is far from fulfilling and liberating. In fact, for many people, work is a source of stress, anxiety, and oppression.

The proponents of this idea would argue that work is fulfilling because it provides people with a sense of purpose, and that it is liberating because it allows people to escape poverty and the lack of opportunity that often comes with it. They claim that work is the key to success and happiness, and that anyone who wants to achieve these things simply needs to work hard and be disciplined. However, this is a fallacy that has been perpetuated by those who benefit the most from it.

The truth is that work is often far from fulfilling, and that it is not liberating. The demands of work can be overwhelming, and the pressure to perform can be immense. The hours are long, and the work is often monotonous and unfulfilling. The reality is that work can be a source of unhappiness, rather than happiness, and that it can be a source of enslavement, rather than liberation.

The wealthy elites, who benefit the most from the system, have the wealth and power to manipulate and control the system, and they exploit the masses by perpetuating the notion that work is fulfilling and liberating. This is a cruel deception to keep people working for the Man, and to keep them from questioning the system.

In conclusion, the idea that work is fulfilling and liberating is a cruel deception that has been perpetuated by those in power. For many people, work is a source of stress, anxiety, and oppression, and it is not the key to happiness and success that it is often portrayed to be. It is up to each of us to challenge this notion and to fight for a fairer and more equitable system that values people over profits.

Aliens Land on Earth: Are We Ready for First Contact?

Managers, in today’s fast-paced world or work, are often tasked with the responsibility of managing teams of employees. However, in their daily routine, they might misplace their “They Live” glasses, hindering their ability to see the true nature of the employees they interact with every day. These glasses, as seen in the classic film “They Live,” have the ability to reveal the true intentions and motivations of the people around you. If managers had such glasses, they would be able to see that the employees they see as mere drones are, in fact, human beings with unique experiences and perspectives.

A manager’s job requires them to manage resources and make decisions that impact the company’s bottom line. In the process, they are often focused on the task at hand, and this focus can often lead to them missing the humanity of the workers they are managing. Without their “They Live” glasses, managers may see workers simply as faceless cogs in the machine, lacking individuality and personal motivations.

However, the reality is that workers are people who have their own dreams, goals, and personal struggles. They bring their experiences and perspectives to the workplace, and it is these experiences and perspectives that help to shape the company’s culture and direction. Managers who are able to see this through their “They Live” glasses will be able to lead their teams more effectively, as they will be able to understand the individual needs and motivations of each worker.

For instance, if a manager sees an employee who is working slowly or lacks motivation, they may see them as lazy and unproductive. However, if they were wearing their “They Live” glasses, they might be able to see that the employee is dealing with personal issues, such as a family crisis, that is impacting their work. By understanding this, the manager could offer support and help the employee get back on track.

Furthermore, when managers are able to see the humanity in their workers, they are able to lead with empathy and compassion. This can create a positive work environment where employees feel valued and motivated, leading to increased productivity and job satisfaction.

In conclusion, managers who misplace their “They Live” glasses are missing out on the opportunity to see the true nature of their employees. By understanding that their workers are not simply drones, but human beings with unique experiences and perspectives, managers can lead more effectively, create a positive work environment, and drive business success. So, it’s important for managers to always keep their “They Live” glasses handy and put them on every day they’re at work.


Don’t Let a Gift Mask Your Emotions: The Transactional and Trivial Nature of Gift-Giving

From my own experiences:

Gift-giving is a common practice in many relationships, whether it be romantic or platonic. However, I believe that showing someone how you feel about them by giving them a gift is a transactional and trivial way of expressing emotions.

First and foremost, a gift is a physical object that can be bought and sold. It is a tangible item that can be exchanged for something else. In contrast, emotions are intangible and cannot be bought or sold.

Expressing emotions through a gift is a transactional way of showing how you feel because it reduces emotions to a physical item that can be exchanged for money. This commodification of emotions trivialises the relationship and reduces it to a transactional exchange.

Furthermore, gifts are often given with the expectation of receiving something in return. This creates a sense of obligation and expectation in the relationship, which can lead to feelings of disappointment if the gift is not reciprocated. This expectation of a return on investment in the relationship can create a sense of distance between the two individuals, rather than fostering intimacy and connection.

Additionally, gifts are often given to fulfill a need or want that the giver perceives the recipient to have. Giving a gift to fulfill a perceived need is not always the best way to attend to emotional needs. The emotional needs of an individual are complex and cannot be fulfilled by a physical item. A gift can only provide temporary satisfaction, whereas emotional needs require time, attention, genuine understanding and empathy.

In conclusion, I believe that showing someone how you feel about them by giving them a gift is a transactional and trivial way of expressing emotions. Instead of giving gifts, it is important to focus on understanding and fulfilling the emotional needs of your loved one. A gift is never the best way to attend to emotional needs. It is important to ask oneself, “Am I attending to this person’s needs?” before giving a gift. Emotions are intangible and cannot be bought or sold, and are much better expressed in a genuine and empathetic manner.

Workforce Mental Health Issues: A Silent Killer of Productivity and Profit

Workforce mental health issues can have a significant impact on the bottom line. The cost of absenteeism, presenteeism, and turnover can be staggering, with estimates suggesting that the cost of mental health issues to UK employers is £34.9 billion per year. This can include direct costs such as medical expenses, workers’ compensation, and disability claims, as well as indirect costs such as lost productivity and increased turnover.

Absenteeism is the most obvious impact of workforce mental health issues. According to the Mental Health Foundation, employees with mental health issues take an average of 23.8 days off per year, compared to 6.6 days for employees without mental health issues. This can lead to increased labor costs, as organisations are forced to find temporary replacements or pay overtime to other employees, which can amount to around £1,300 per employee per year. Additionally, absenteeism can lead to decreased productivity and morale, as other employees are forced to pick up the slack.

Presenteeism is another. Employees who are struggling with mental health issues may come to work, but may not be able to perform at their best, leading to an estimated £15.1 billion per year in lost productivity. Additionally, presenteeism can lead to decreased morale, as other employees may feel resentful that they are carrying the load for their struggling colleagues.

Staff turnover can also increase. Employees who are struggling with mental health issues may be more likely to leave their jobs, which can lead to increased hiring and training costs, as well as decreased productivity and morale. According to a report by Deloitte, the cost of replacing a single employee can be as much as £30,614. Additionally, turnover can lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and valuable skills, which can be difficult to replace.

To address the impact of these issues on the bottom line, organisations can take a number of steps. One of the most important is to create a culture of openness and support. Employees should feel comfortable talking about their mental health issues and seeking help, without fear of discrimination or retaliation.

Additionally, resources and support for employees who are struggling can help. This might include employee assistance programs, counseling services, and mental health days.

Finally, all organisations can be more proactive in identifying and addressing potential mental health issues in the workforce. This might include conducting regular employee surveys, monitoring absenteeism and turnover, and providing regular mental health screenings. By taking these steps, organisations can reduce the impact of workforce mental health issues on the bottom line and create a more positive and productive work environment for everyone.

The irony of my situation. is not lost on me (although I guess it’s lost on most everyone else).

My career has been driven for at least the past thirty years by my concern and compassion for those many millions of folks working in jobs where they have no chance to fulfil their innate potential. Not to mention the unemployed, who also have little to zero opportunity to exercise any of their innate potential.

And now I find myself in the same situation. Oh, the irony.

“Please, just attend to my needs”

This is the silent plea of everyone in your organisation (and everyone in our lives, for that matter).

Silent because of fear of appearing weak or needy. And silent because those in need rarely realise they have unmet needs, let alone realise that their needs could be attended to.

Are you hearing their requests? Are you doing something, anything, about them?

How would you feel if your heartfelt pleas continually fell on deaf ears? Do you care how others might be feeling?

– Bob

Compassion Makes For A Better Developer. Period.

I’m loving the book “Compassionomics” by Steve Trzeciak, Cory Booker and Anthony Mazzarelli. I’m finding oodles of research-based data and information of immense relevance to software development organisations, and to businesses generally. 

Not that research, science, and evidence is going to sway folks much if at all. Yet, for those already swayed, the information in the book might be useful. 

There’s a bunch of terms – terms widely in use in the medical business field – explained in the book. Here’s a brief introduction to some of them: 


“Decades of rigorous research have identified three hallmarks of burnout: emotional exhaustion (being emotionally depleted or overextended), a lack of personal accomplishment (the feeling that one can’t really make a difference), and depersonalisation. Depersonalisation is the inability to make that personal connection.”

~ Trzeciak & Mazzarelli

Depersonalisation also results in reduction in empathy for patients, and in treatment with compassion.

Compassion Fatigue

Literally, running our of compassion for patients.


In the field of medicine, adherence is defined as the extent to which patients are able to follow treatment recommendations from health care providers. Non-adherence is, of course, the opposite: patients patients not following treatment recommendations.

The most common example of non-adherence is when a patient is supposed to be taking prescribed medication but is not taking his or her pills. But non-adherence can be about much more than just not taking medication. It’s also a factor with other treatments, like patients with kidney failure who do not show up for scheduled dialysis treatments. Or when a physician recommends that a patient modifies a certain behaviour – like quitting smoking, losing weight, or exercising regularly – but that patient doesn’t follow through.

Compassion Satisfaction

Compassion satisfaction is the degree to which a person feels pleasure or satisfaction from their efforts to relieve others’ suffering. Aside: It’s this idea that informs the Antimatter Principle.

Compassion Fatigue

Compassion fatigue (emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and, in this case, also taking on stress from taking care of those that are stressed from being sick)

“A lack of compassion leads to increased workforce issues”

“A new field of research is suggesting that when organizations promote an ethic of compassion rather than a culture of stress, they may not only see a happier workplace but also an improved bottom line. Consider the important—but often overlooked—issue of workplace culture…Employees in positive moods are more willing to help peers and to provide customer service on their own accord…In doing so, they boost coworkers’ productivity levels and increase coworkers’ feeling of social connection, as well as their commitment to the workplace and their levels of engagement with their job. Given the costs of health care, employee turnover, and poor customer service, we can understand how compassion might very well have a positive impact not only on employee health and well-being but also on the overall financial success of a workplace.”

~ Dr. Emma Seppälä, “Why Compassion in Business Makes Sense”

Emotional Labour

Emotional labour is the management of one’s emotions (both one’s experienced emotions as well as one’s displayed emotions) to present a certain image.

For decades, researchers in management and organisational behaviour have been studying emotional labour by service workers across all types of service industries. For health care providers, emotional labour includes the expectation of compassionate behaviours toward patients, even if those providers aren’t actually feeling an emotional connection with the patient in that particular moment. (A word of caution here: Please resist the temptation to trivialise emotional labour as “faking it.” It goes much deeper than that…)


Recent advances in neuroscience have overturned the long-held belief that the brain’s structure and function was essentially fixed throughout adulthood, in favour of neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity refers to the human brain’s ability to form, reorganise and grow new synaptic connections, even through adulthood. 


Are you really telling me the all this research has no relevance to the software industry? That developers, etc., have no need of compassion? That compassion won’t make for a better developer? Tcha!

– Bob

Further Reading

Trzeciak, S., Booker, C. and Mazzarelli, A. (2019). Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence that Caring Makes a Difference. Studer Group.

Getting Along

When all is said and done, all our artifices, all our strivings, all our efforts to organise work… it’s simply about figuring our how to get along (with each other). 

If we’re getting paid but not being productive, the payers will rankle and cavil, and they and we won’t get along. If we’re producing stuff that doesn’t meed the needs of our customers, they will feel frustrated and they and we won’t get along.  If we treat some folks like pariahs or cogs in our machine, they won’t feel valued or respected, and they and we won’t get along.

There’s really no more to work, and organisations, than getting along. In Rightshifted organisations, for example, such as the quintessential ones, folks simple get along better.

What does it take for us all to get along?

– Bob

Crosby’s Four Absolutes of Quality Reframed

I recently posted a quickie repeating Phil Crosby’s Four Absolutes of Quality.

I accept that many folks find his choice of vocabulary less than clear. So, here’s a reframing of his four absolutes, reframed in the Antimatter Principle vocabulary (a reframing which you may or may not find more helpful).

  1. The definition of quality is meeting everyone’s needs, NOT “goodness”.
  2. The behaviour that causes quality to happen is paying attention to folks’ needs, NOT inspection.
  3. The performance standard for quality is “all needs met, for all the Folks that Matter™️”, NOT “that’s good enough”.
  4. The measurement of quality is the cost of focus, NOT indices.

– Bob


As a society, and as a species, we have a choice: 

The Domination System, supported by the Myth of Redemptive Violence


Nonviolence, especially an end to violence against women and girls.

It’s either-or time, folks. 

#StopViolenceAgainstWomen means #EndTheDominationSystem

Which in turn means we cannot expect the present Domination System (government, politicians, the retributive “justice” system,…) to do ANYTHING constructive or useful. Action is simply contrary to their interests.

– Bob

Further Reading (n.d.). A different world is possible. [online] Available at:

“Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive.”

~ Dalai Lama

Found in: Trzeciak, Stephen; Mazzarelli, Anthony. Compassionomics: The Revolutionary Scientific Evidence that Caring Makes a Difference (p. 23). Studer Group. Kindle Edition.

Where Are All the Helpees?

Amongst my needs, maybe even my most compelling need, is to help people. That’s one reason I blog. Tragically, then, I need helpees – folks that actually need some kind of help.

Aside: I have a very specific definition of “help” (v) here:

“To give aid or support, as requested; be of service.”

I don’t see taking partial or complete responsibility for someone else’s problem or issue as any kind of “help”, whether invited or no. Nor doing I regard the providing of advice, solicited or unsolicited, as ever being helpful.

I define helpees as folks that actually need some kind of help. Folks that are actively engaged in try to get something done, but are, by their own admission, less than entirely able to make as much progress as they need, less than entirely able to see that thing through (for a multitude of reasons) at the speed they need.

Refusable Request

Would you be willing to help me find more helpees?

– Bob

Psychological Safety – Oh! The Irony

The march of time seems to have judged “psychological safety” as a passing fad. Not that it’s an irrelevant idea – far from it. 

I suspect psychological safety gained some acclaim because everybody wanted it for themselves. “Yes, please. I feel anxious, exposed and at risk when I speak out, so I’d really appreciate some psychological safety, thank you.”

We’ll skip over the unlikely prospect of any managers being interested in providing an environment of psychological safety (why would they need to do that?) and get straight to the irony.

The Irony

I’ve spoken with some number of colleagues who all attest to feelings of anxiety, being exposed and being at risk of judgement by peers in the software community when they speak out about certain, possibly contentious or unpopular issues. 

Aside : I suspect it’s more often fear of the consequences of speaking out that’s at the root of these anxieties, rather that fear of being judged per se. 

The irony being, of course, that whereas individuals are fine with accepting psychology safety provided by others, they’re far less interested in extending psychological safety in turn.

What are you doing on a daily basis to extend psychological safety to others?

– Bob

Further Reading (1 June 2015). Tired of Being Judged? Try This. | Psychology Today. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Sep. 2021].

How Much Do You Care?

In recent times I have noted an upswing in the frequency of conversations about the ethical dimension of software development. Although still early days, many aspects of the social implications of software are beginning to receive more attention.

Effective Software Development

The dog’s breakfast that is Agile in the real world today exemplifies, for me, a key aspect of these ethical questions. Not that ethical questions are at all limited to the software industry.

What am I talking about? I’m talking about how people with a clear understanding of e.g. Agile software development (yes, there are some) tolerate, even support, a pallid, ineffective version in their workplace because their jobs and livelihoods depend on not rocking the boat. I’m talking about how folks go along with an ineffective and crippled approach for an easy life. Although how easy is it to stand by and watch project after project fail or limp along, with the consequent frustration and angst for all concerned?

With the oft-reported woefully low levels of employee engagement in most organisations, it’s hardly surprising that people just let such things slide by with little or no comment, complaint or action.


We might take a leaf out of Gandhi’s nonviolent campaign playbook. He placed the idea of satyagraha at the heart of his toolkit of civil resistance. What is satyagraha? Online references describe it as “truth-force” or “the force that is generated through adherence to truth”.

Note: In this context, I choose to regard “truth” as referring to ethical imperatives such as justice, fairness and righteousness, and not simply factual truth. And yes, everyone has their own “truths” a.k.a. assumptions and beliefs. As do groups, such as organisations.

At the core of satyagraha is the willingness to suffer for the truth. Spiritual, emotional and physical suffering, borne in public, serves to emphasise the degree to which the satyagrahi care about the issue upon which they are campaigning.

Do You Care Enough to Suffer?

In the case of Agile, as with other aspects of how organisations run themselves today, it’s fair for folks to ask:

“Is it any of my concern? Don’t senior people with much higher pay grades than me hold the responsibility for these things?”

How is this any different from the old defence “I was only following orders?” 

Do you care? Do you care enough to start to say “No.”? In a civil and polite way, of course.

Are you prepared to suffer to see things become better for all concerned?

– Bob

%d bloggers like this: