Reviewing the Evaluator: The Efficacy of the ODA

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Morgan Khanstein, Mar 20, 2005.

  1. Morgan Khanstein

    Morgan Khanstein New Member

    Let me begin by stating my respect for Alan Contreras, and my utter dislike of the insults and abuse he has endured. However, I would like to propose a serious discussion of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization work in attempting to police diploma mills.

    I strongly encourage those of you would prefer insult over reason to abstain from this discussion.

    The following is an illustrative, but not exhaustive, list of a few of the core questions I hope we can discuss:

    1. Given that an unaccredited institution has not gone through formal review by an external evaluator, how can one distinguish a legitimate independent and self-governing postsecondary institution from a diploma mill?

    2. What criteria of evaluation would need to be included in a longitudinal study to verify or falsify the following two propositions?

    (a) An unaccredited postsecondary institution is of substandard quality in comparison to an RA university;
    (b) Some unaccredited postsecondary institutions are of equal or better value than some RA universities.

    3. How does the ODA arrive at its determinations?

    4. How valuable is Oregon’s “list” in assisting (a) human relations personnel in evaluating qualifications, (b) potential students to make wise choices, and (c) unaccredited schools in raising their own standards of excellence?

    5. What problems or failures in design, if any, does Oregon’s “list” contain? and

    6. How much government ovesight do we, as a society, want in the area of postsecondary education?

    I look forward to your comments.

    Morgan Khanstein, Esq.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2005
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Well, I'd like a single example of an unaccredited school that meets or exceeds the quality of an RA institution OTHER THAT schools like Bob Jones that choose to avoid accreditation for religious reasons.
  3. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    It can be difficult due to the diploma mill owner's typical desire to obscure, obfuscate, deceive, and lie.

    Due to it's public access, it has frequently been referenced in articles and public forums such as this. My view is that it has made a tremendous positive impact. For example, it appears to me to be a contributing factor in both CCU and BJU deciding to become accredited. It is a visible symbol that supports my contention that habitually unaccredited but bona fide schools are becoming extinct. Another fact that supports this contention is that diploma mill shills no longer seem willing to discuss specific unaccredited institutions that they believe are specific examples of habitually unaccredited yet bona fide institutions.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2005
  4. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    and BJU is said to be pursuing TRACS accreditation
  5. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    One could,
    1) ask for and receive a complete list of all graduation requirements (undergrad and grad) along with a complete list of all alternative means of satisfying these requirements.
    2) ask for and receive a complete list of all faculty members (full-time, part-time, etc.) as well as their credentials, publications and currents areas of research interest.
    3) ask for and receive a list of graduates along with contact information.
    4) ask for and receive as listing of every graduate school that has accepted one of the schools graduates along with departmental information.
    5) ask for and receive a syllabus for any given course offered at the school along with the required and supplemental reading list as well as copies of old examinations.
    6) ask for and receive a clear, comprehensive and logical explanation for the school's unaccredited status along with an explanation of any plans to modify this status.
    That would be a good start.

    Once I had all that information I'd want to see a copy of their diploma and I'd want to know if I could change the font to something Gothic-looking, in Latin, and with an embossed seal.
  6. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    One can't, unless one prefers informal review (of unspecified and unknown rigor and questionable objectivity to explicitly delineated formal review processes) ... and for what absolutely sanguine reasons would one choose such a path?
    Response: (i): Valid hypotheses testing regimens argue the acceptability or non-acceptability of properly constructed null hypothesis; they do not "verify" or "falsify" such.

    Response (ii). The null hypothesis: "the objectively measurable and documentable quality of an unaccredited and substandard postsecondary institution (using a specific metric 1...... or 2..... or 3......... etc.), is statistically not significant compared to that of an RA university" - is easily not accepted (that is, easily rejected). The mere existence, widespread acceptability, longevity and support of and for legitimate accrediting organizations and processes may be one testament to such an easily rejectable hypothesis.

    Response (iii): Content quality, proven delivery methods, faculty credentials, institutional review and self-improvement methods, externally-imposed oversight vehicles, etc. (most of which are already embedded in the legitimate RA/CHEA/USDoE-recognized accreditation schemes), are some possible such criteria.
    Response # (iv): See Responses #(ii) and (iii) above.
    Response # (v): One could reasonably construct a non-hypothetical longitudinal study to reject the postulate in 2(b) by citing an example of ONE specific unaccredited postsecondary institution and ONE specific RA university and collecting the relevant measures over time.

    How, though, can one do this informally if one eschews the formal and necessary fact-gathering and documentation process? The RA process is a formal one and has been structured to be amenable to testing this easily rejectable proposition.

    In my opinion, Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Morgan's thread-starting post can be analyzed in part with reference to the subsequent (to the Oregon ODA diploma mill list publication), fast and almost national drive to create, access and use one or more legitimate list(s) of properly and legitimately accredited institutions as a means to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Oregon ODA's process is arguably far from perfect but it definitely is a landmark.

    As I see it, past and current actions by the governments of the states of Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey and proposed and upcoming activities and legislation in several others support and do not contradict Oregon's philosophy and intent, if not its approach.

  7. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Try this:

    Of course they are technically accredited by the NY Regents, and they will doubtless become RA soon. But until that blessed day, the Nobel Prizes kind of help them keep their chin up.

    Then there's my favorite CA-approved school:

    (It's on WASC's site visit schedule.)

    If you don't like it, well...

    THIS should persuade you to you keep your head down. (Not every school can boast its own air force.)

    The US State Department kind of gave these guys a back-handed endorsement when it threatened to shut them down (the problem has since been resolved):

    And there's always this abject degree mill:

    It might end up getting accredited someday, but it isn't right now.
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I Google them and see what I can see.

    I do searches on their names, limited to .edu and/or sites, looking for what's said about them on other academic websites. Often there are no hits at all. If a school purports to offer all kinds of doctoral programs, that's pretty strong evidence right there that the school is a mill. It's inconceivable to me that you can operate a doctoral program but nobody in your field notices.

    When there are hits, I look at what they are. Do professors and students at the questioned school publish anything? Do they appear at conferences? Do they participate in collaborative research projects? Does anyone discuss work that was done at the questioned school? Has anyone at the school ever won any grants or awards?

    I just Googled 'Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory' and got 51,000 hits. I'm sure that there's some very interesting stuff in that pile. (You would have to search inside the results to find it.)

    Prominent faculty and staff are a sign of credibility. Cold Spring Harbor's longtime director was James Watson, of 'Watson and Crick' DNA fame. A veritable who's who of molecular biology has passed through and four additional scientists have won Nobel Prizes for work done at least in part at CSHL.

    What's more, Cold Spring Harbor has turned itself into an internationally known scientific confernce center, famous for its Cold Spring Harbor Symposia.

    OK, after almost a century as a non-degree-granting research institute, these people recently decided to roll out their own doctoral program. They got it accredited/approved by the NY Regents and off they went. (They also host SUNY Stony Brook doctoral students.)

    It's not RA yet, but I think that it's pretty credible and I expect that it's accepted as such by virtually everyone in the biological sciences. It's not only credible, it's flat-out prestigious.

    Obviously this is a very extreme case and it's probably almost unique. I'm basically just pointing it out in order to poke Nosborne with a stick. But it definitely does represent one end of the spectrum.
  9. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    :D These are wonderful examples as to why I like to say habitually unaccredited instead of just plan unaccredited. :)
  10. Morgan Khanstein

    Morgan Khanstein New Member

    Re: Re: Reviewing the Evaluator: The Efficacy of the ODA

    Here are a few of the problems that I see in the ODA’s web site:

    First, a high number of institutions received the following remark: “ODA has no evidence that this is a legitimate provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards.” Although not a logical fallacy (Appeal to Ignorance), it doesn’t actually tell us much. It doesn’t tell us if ODA collected any evidence, if there is a process going on, etc. Let’s look at it again:

    ODA has no evidence that
    [X = is a legitimate provider of postsecondary education]
    [Y = meets Oregon standards.]

    This structure serves little more than as a government disclaimer:

    For example, the FDA has no evidence that [X = vitamins] [Y = are good for your health]. Or, the FDA has no evidence that [X = acupuncture] [Y = is an effective health treatment]. Yet both vitamins and acupuncture (as examples) remain on the market, and are used by millions. The world is full of things that the government has no evidence for its efficacy, especially if no tests have been done.

    Second, many remarks state: “Appears to be a diploma mill” without telling us why it appears to be so. By “appear” does ODA mean that it is “certainly,” “probably,” or “possibly” a diploma mill? If the entity “may” be a diploma mill, then it “may not” be a diploma mill. Besides flipping a coin, how can I, as a consumer, know?

    Third, by having one spread sheet with ambivalent remarks, all institutions - despite their intent- stand to be painted with the same brush.

    All new universities, even those that hope to one day achieve accreditation, must pass through a phase of being unaccredited. The format of the list associates all with one another (e.g. those that require some work and a summative dissertation with those institutions that require no work) - suggesting a mutual guild of fraud to the public.

    In the interest of protecting the public safety, the ODA has created a real victim- innovation. The unfortunate result is: (a) all new postsecondary institutions must pass through a stigma of being labeled “diploma mill” by the general public, a potential marketing nightmare to one day have to overcome; (b) to avoid the label “diploma mill” all new institutions must get off the list ASAP. This unfairly favors those heavily funded (read: either the rich or big corporations) over any models put forward with less money (e.g. a group of academics wanting to experiment).

    In view of the aforementioned, I would kindly like to suggest that ODA revise its web site. Failing this, why not simply step aside and let Adam Smith’s invisible hand decide?
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    It certainly is true that every college or university must go through a period of non accreditation at the outset.


    I still consider damned suspicious any school that REMAINS unaccredited after more than a few years of founding. It seems to me that the burden is properly on any such school to produce a solid reason for NOT seeking accreditation.

    A resident school can seek candidacy for R/A two years after opeining its doors. A law school can seek provisional accreditation before graduating its first class.

    Solid reasons might be:

    -There is no accreditor for this sort of program.

    -The degree/diploma would not become significantly more useful or more acceptable to licensure if accredited.

    -There are religious concerns.

    Solid reasons are NOT:

    -Accreditation is voluntary so why should we?

    -Accreditation is expensive so why should we?

    -Our program has standards that are too low to satisfy the rest of the academic community.

    You still haven't named a single school, BTW.
  12. Dave Wagner

    Dave Wagner Active Member

    Re: Re: Re: Reviewing the Evaluator: The Efficacy of the ODA

    The ODA website could be maintained as someone's hobby. All it needs to do is list the institutions other than RA or NA that are approved for use in Oregon, which is about a half of a page of text...

    Best wishes,

  13. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    Which raises at least two interesting questions ........

    1. Which of the following two activities entails more huffing-and-puffing back-breaking work and/or wallet-depleting scenario?
    - to get OFF a published diploma mill and/or suspiciously unaccredited list. or
    - to get ON a published, legitimately accredited list?

    This next question comes out of sheer curiousity and is not intended as a slap at Oregon ODA's process ...... since it goes without saying that every governmental or private activity worth its salt and worth having, which is both effective and efficient, costs money and thus needs revenues to continue to operate/improve/serve to protect its citizens.

    2. Which activity would conceivably bring more revenues into the state's coffers -

    (a) listing as many diploma mills/unaccredited entities as possible and hope that several would gladly pay for in-state reviews so as to be able to officially get OFF that list, or

    (b) listing the few state-approved but non-RA, non-NA, and ostensibly high-quality and legitimate unaccredited institutions with the hope that several of the unapproved, unlisted unaccredited institutions would gladly pay for in-state reviews so as to be able to officially get ON that approved list?


    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2005
  14. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    The charges by the ODA are so minimal that I can't imagine that they ever collect anything but a small token amount per year.
  15. Morgan Khanstein

    Morgan Khanstein New Member

    The only reason I hesitate to answer your question is that, not having done any studies, I “have no evidence” that any of the unaccredited institutions of higher education (IHEs) meets or exceeds the quality of an RA. (If there are any Un-RA reading, for $5,000.00, air fare, lodging and per diem I will investigate your institution, write up my findings, and publish them here for all to see! ha ha!)

    However, I do have an interesting example that may meet your demands. The example allows us to "test" three institutions, all offering similar services, with three various states of accreditation and approval. The example is drawn from Waldorf education (and its philosophy of “anthroposophy”), which is not without its critics and supporters, but has been gaining mainstream acceptance.

    The schools include: Antioch Graduate School, an RA school; Sunbridge College a N.Y. Board of Regents school; and Rudolf Steiner College, which is only approved by CA.

    All three schools offer training in the same field (Waldorf and anthroposophy), and thus compete against each other in the same market. From a preliminary investigation I have found “no evidence” that individuals wishing to be certified in Waldorf, or Waldorf schools, or individuals involved in “anthroposophy” view Antioch higher than Sunbridge or Rudolf Steiner College (RSA). In fact, by googling around it seems that RSA enjoys a high reputation among these folks (if there are any anthroposophs out there, please correct me if I'm wrong).

    This small example, drawn admittedly from outside the mainstream, demonstrates the possibility that RA standing doesn’t guarantee superior services – only that minimum standards have been met.

    Now I admit, I haven’t provided you with an unaccredited IHE that meets or exceeds the standards of Jake_A’s Brown or George Washington universities, but then again – neither do the RA schools that I went to.

    If you’re interested, here are the links and self-descriptions:

    “Antioch Graduate School ( is fully accredited by the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges" - offers a certificate in Waldorf Education and and two M.Eds from a Waldorf perspective. “Antioch New England Graduate School's Waldorf Education Teacher Training Program was inaugurated in 1982 to meet the rapidly growing need for Waldorf teachers in North America. The program is co-sponsored by the council of the Center for Anthroposophy (New England Waldorf Teacher Training).” (All degree programs are also approved by the New Hampshire Postsecondary Commission).

    Sunbridge College (, is “a registered and accredited college offering Masters and Certificate programs in Waldorf education and related fields inspired by the work of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)... The College is well-established, having been founded in 1967 Sunbridge College is chartered and accredited by the Board of Regents of the State University of New York and by the New York State Department of Education."

    "Rudolf Steiner College ( is one of America's leading Waldorf teacher education colleges. It is also a center for anthroposophical studies... The College is approved by the State of California to grant a B.A in Waldorf Education and Anthroposophical Studies. Students completing Waldorf teacher education programs receive a diploma in Waldorf education.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2005
  16. Morgan Khanstein

    Morgan Khanstein New Member

    I would disagree that the burden is on the institution to justify its reasons for voluntarily not seeking accredtiation. Instead, the burden on them is to demonstrate to the public that their services, products and graduates meet high quality standards (as I would argue Greenwich once did).

    But let's look at this from a different angle:

    Let us describe an unaccredited university as an institution which engages in pedagogical services and/or academic research outside of either government or private oversight. (I would guess this is the reason why most institutes appear on the ODA list).

    If this is true, then we can examine and compare the quality of educational services and research by private companies and institutions (both for and non profit) to accredited universities.

    In doing so, my purpose is to prop-up the following proposition:

    Independent self-governing companies or institution are capable of performing educational services and research that meet or exceed the standards of most RA universities (and by implication support the possibility of independent self-governing institutions that have high quality standards).

    Let's begin with educational services:

    One strong example is the Teaching Company ( , which offers offers college level lectures on audio and video arts courses for sale to the public far beyond the quality or scope of most colleges and universities (unfortunately, the Teaching Company dropped its Mirus University soon after its founding – if anyone knows why, please share).

    Another interesting example is the growing phenomena of “outsourcing” education by RA institutes to private companies. A prime example is Performance Learning Systems, Inc. ( PLS makes the following claims on its web site: “PLS partners with many colleges or universities — PLS offers the courses and the college or university grants the credit… PLS organizes cohort groups with our college and university partners; Our courses are included as part of a complete master's degree program; Graduate credit is granted through our college and university partners.” 18 RA universities in as many states prefer to have a “non-accredited” private company provide the courses under their umbrella. To check on this I called one institution asking why. The response was that it was cheaper for them. PLS pays the salary, and they don’t have to worry about overhead, insurance, tenor, etc. They guaranteed me, though, that the courses were accreditited. This is an interesting marriage between RA institutions and private companies beyond government or accreditor oversight.

    The aforementioned example, I believe, illustrates that the line between RA and “independent self-governing institution” is more flexible than usually perceived.


    Think Tanks, such as RAND (, Brookings Institute (, Carnegie Endowment for Peace (, World Policy Institute (, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute ( conduct research, publish books, and sponsor symposia. In fact, I cannot think of any university that has the reach into the Federal government and media that these private institutes do, all of whom operate without RA oversight (I’m not speaking here of RAND’s university, which is an adjunct to its think tank).

    Many of the same types of questions that can be marshaled at unaccredited universities can be raised against think tanks (see below*). Nevertheless, few would question the fact that think tanks are a legitimate part of the “intelligence system.”

    With the aforementioned in view, why marginalize unaccredited universities, or simply label most, as ODA does, as diploma mills?

    * The Center for Media and Democracy

    reminds us (something forgotten by most people) that:

    “A Think Tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and/or analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors… Think tanks are funded primarily by large businesses and major foundations. They devise and promote policies that shape the lives of everyday Americans: Social Security privatization, tax and investment laws, regulation of everything from oil to the Internet…. A think tank's resident experts carry titles such as "senior fellow" or "adjunct scholar," but this does not necessarily mean that they even possess an academic degree in their area of claimed expertise. Outside funding can corrupt the integrity of academic institutions. The same corrupting influences affect think tanks, only more so.
    Think tanks are like universities minus the students and minus the systems of peer review and other mechanisms that academia uses to promote diversity of thought. Real academics are expected to conduct their research first and draw their conclusions second, but this process is often reversed at most policy-driven think tanks.”
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2005
  17. bullet

    bullet New Member

    where did everyone go?

    What happened here?"
  18. Morgan Khanstein

    Morgan Khanstein New Member

    Re: where did everyone go?

    Dear Colleagues,

    I'd like to thank everyone for their participation. I thought it was a fruitful discussion, with lots of back and forth, and everyone presenting their positions.

    I'd like to especially thank Alan (though he didn't comment). It's obviously not easy to have your department and job discussed (I know I wouldn't want to have mine up here), but I guess it comes with being a public official - and part of this great democracy. Thank you for being part of degreeinfo. I find it wonderful that we can discourse with a government representative.

    I'd also like to thank those of you who prefer "insult to reason" that you did in fact refrain from the discussion.

    Until next time - All the best,

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2005
  19. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    Holy potatoes!

    Listen up, all of you bookworms, settlers and research geeks on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC!

    Morgan Khamenstein has something to say to you.

    (.... Turns to Morgan .....)

    Scholars and research associates at all top research think-tanks are shaking their heads as they read your (Morgan's) next-to-last post above!

    BTW, why the farewell post? You are not abandoning this thread, especially not after posting your last message that somehow equates nonaccredited entities with independent think-tanks or at least, threw them into the same pot!

    Let's lessen the confusion, shall we?

    Why mix apples and oranges? Why mix unaccredited entities/businesses in the same sentence as research think-tanks?

    PWE awards "degrees:" Brookings Institution does NOT!
    KWE awards "degrees:" Rand does NOT!

    While, unaccredited "schools" are awarding "degrees" and filling their bank "tanks" with credit card receipts and dollars (and euros or whatever), research think-tanks do not and never have claimed any degree-granting authority! So why the comparison; why the equation? why the analogy?

    False analogies galore!

    Why are you using the excellent reputations and academic and analytical rigor that exist in some of these, the most prestigious think-tanks, with a discussion of unaccredited entities?

    Consider the merits, or lack thereof, of unaccredited entities on their own.

    Consider the merits, or lack thereof, of research think-tanks on their own.

    What evidence, exactly, have you provided here, that might somehow lead a reasonable person to equate unaccredited entities with the think-tanks that you cited as examples?

    What exactly, do unaccredited "schools" do that the research think-tanks also do? (if anything?)

    And if A does something which B also engages in, what makes you exercise your bold leap of faith to equate the quality of what A does to that of B?

    When, where, and exactly how does the unaccredited entity which you are speaking of, or championing, "demonstrate to the public that their services, products and graduates meet high quality standards"?

    And, btw, which quality standards do they hold and how/who measures them and certifies to others that such quality standards have been attained?

    How do you know of them since most unaccredited entities do NOT publish their "quality" standards?

    Share your sources, if any, with us.

    True. So?

    What has any of this got to do with unaccredited entities (like PWE and KWE and SRU and CPU) being shown to be "capable of performing educational services and research that meet or exceed the standards of most RA universities"?

    Cite below ONE such explicit "standard of most RA universities" and cite here also one or more specific examples of an unaccredited "university" that in your opinion "meet or exceed this (stated) RA standard?"

    True? So why even mention them in the same breadth as what's your basis for linking them to unaccredited and un-wonderful "schools"?

    Wait a minute!

    Why would Rand and Brookings and Carnegie Endowment or Heritage Foundation "operate with RA oversight?"

    What the ...... !

    News flash!

    These are not universities! They are think-tanks! They do not award degrees! The ones with links or relationships or offshoots to or of degree-granting universities, have ALL ensured that the universities are properly accredited, yes, via RA/CHEA/USDoE-recognized accreditation!

    States RAND:

    "Across a broad range of subjects, RAND research is characterized by its independence, objectivity, and nonpartisanship; its empirical foundation; its high quality, scientific rigor, and interdisciplinary approach; and its dedication to improving policymaking on the major issues of the day."

    Can you say the same of PWE? SRU? KWE? CPU? Any unaccredited degree-granting operation? Which one(s)?


    "The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision-making through research and analysis."

    Morgan, most unaccredited entities, the ones I believe you are defending, are for-profit. Name one which is not.

    Also, can you, Morgan, say the same of KWE where it has been shown that one can obtain a PhD degree without ever having been REQUIRED, to take one mandatory course in research and analysis?

    Can you say that of any unaccredited operation? Which one?

    More ......

    "Today, RAND's work continues to reflect and inform the American agenda. While one part of RAND works to define the emerging epidemic of obesity among Americans, another has just detailed future directions of the military aircraft industry. While one division analyzes the problem of substance abuse among high school students, another develops simple steps that individuals can take to protect themselves from the harmful effects of potential terrorist attacks."

    When was the last time that earth-shaking research and policy analysis came out of the likes of CPU or SRU or PWE or any other unaccredited degree-granting operation?

    More, FYI .....

    "The Brookings Institution, one of Washington's oldest think tanks, is an independent, nonpartisan organization devoted to research, analysis, and public education with an emphasis on economics, foreign policy, governance, and metropolitan policy."

    Any questions, Morgan?

    "Brookings is financed by gifts and grants, its endowment, revenue from executive education and publications, and other sources."

    How are the degree-granting unaccredited entities you appear to be championing ever been financed via this method?

    See here ..... for Brookings Scholars:

    Morgan, if you or anyone else brandishing an unaccredited degree of any type shows up at either Rand, or Brookings or Heritage, etc., take this from me: You will be laughed out of the ball park (ummm, mall).

    If I have, somehow, completely misconstrued any aspect of your post above that talked about academically rigorous research think-tanks and unaccredited entities, in the same breath, please explain here - and I will offer you my apologies forthwith.

  20. Morgan Khanstein

    Morgan Khanstein New Member

    Hi Jake_A,

    I thought the party was over! Glad to hear your back. Are there any more RA Knights out there with you that I need to contend with too - not that you alone aren't quite enough? It just seems that you all usually travel around as a unit.

    Give me a bit to saddle my steed and take up my sword and I'll be back.


    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2005

Share This Page