Thursday, April 21, 2005

I have reserved Otowi Cafeteria,

Fellow LANL Staff-
It is human nature to attribute problems to malevolence. In my experience, problems are seldom the result of malevolence, but more often are the result of insufficient foresight, organization, process, skill or communication. Our institutional weaknesses might have been tolerable a few years ago, but today our inadequacies stress to the limit our management's ability to navigate the confluence of the turbulent waters we have come into. We are on the verge of a great opportunity with the RRW initiative. I think we have some hard work to bring our organization and tools to the level needed. Lets put away the anger and distrust and work for the success of the institution. Cut the managers some slack. Recruit better ones, if you can find some. Make constructive suggestions instead of angry attacks.

I have reserved Otowi Cafeteria, side room C, from 11:30 to 1:00 PM next Thursday if any of you would like to join in a discussion.
Gary Stradling

For what?
And when? and why?
Gary, You are completely nuts. Do you think we're stupid? Might be of use if Nanos and associates were removed AND DOE and UC showed they really cared about the Lab. Until then, you're just wasting your time. We're stuck with Nanos and I'm afraid the "end of days" for the Lab is coming. As a professed millennialist you should understand this.
Enjoy your quiet lunch, Gary. I doubt anyone will disturb you.
(Not related to post content - feel free to delete from comment thread)


For some reason this post, and a couple others recently came up in an unbelievably small font -- even increasing the font size in my browser to the max didn't make it readable. The best I could do was highlight, cut, and paste into an editor to read the content. Not sure how helpful this info is, but I thought I'd let you know. (For what it's worth, I am using Safari 1.3 on MacOSX 10.3.9.).
Sorry about that. Some artifact of fonts and posting to blogger that was not apparent to me. I think it's fixed.

Gary, thanks for trying to offer a bit of rationalism. Unfortunately, as you can see here, this blogger tool, which was once a good idea, has now bogged into an emotional sink awash in negativity and populated by people who don't want improvement, but rather want to continue to portray themselves as victims (because it's much easier to be a victim than it is to try and take some responsibility for having a stake in the outcome of your own reality). The fact that you'll probably have few takers for your cafeteria offer illustrates most poignantly that most here who throw out their potshots and character assasinations are but cockroaches who scurry away from the harsh light of reality and are content to feast off the crumbs of negativity and despair. Enjoy your quiet lunch, Gary. The people who spend their time on this stupid blog ain't worth the heartburn you'd experience if they had the guts to show up.
It's obvious that Gary either did not read or chose not understand the excellent comments that followed his original posting. Those that choose not to listen to the cries of the oppressed will themselves perish in the prisons of their own ignorance. I have no desire to meet with an apologist for a serial abuser who already has been exposed.
Cockroaches have survived for over a million years. 4/22/2005 06:47:08 AM would probably characterized everyone that has resisted tyranny as cockroaches because the cause they fought and died for has survived as well. As Francis Scott Key observed, "The flag is still there."
Dear 4/22/05 @ 06:47:08AM
It is interesting, as well as fascinating,to notice that YOU who seem to be so very brave and so very courageous and so very outspoken with your negative comments re the many boggers who frequent this site also chose to sign your posting as "Anonymous."

Will you be attending Gary's meeting? Should a seat be reserved just for YOU?
Gary must live in a different world than most of the LANL staff. As,Frederick Douglas wrote, "Power never concedes anything without a demand.It never has and it never will". This, examined closely, yields the key to LANL's current problems.
Management typically yields some power to the workforce, for morale and productivity. At LANL alibis work even better than output, so that will not work. Same for seeking input from the workforce, with initiatives such as TQM/CQI. LANL management gutted the program because, alibis work even better than output.
It is only with accountability, for results, that management has an incentive to share power with the workforce. Most managers therefore feel that "empowering" the workforce is losing power, and will only do it under pressure from some source. As the Galvin Report (1995)found long ago, the incentives don't work, output does not matter. Galvin did not lead to reform at LANL, it led to attacks on the DOE, by Domenici, and to the DOE. LANL safety and security problems led to ISM, and ISSM, each touted in their turn. Now we are told, and presented with evidence that, ISSM did not work. Eyewash...
Gary works in ADNWP. If he wants to see how broken the system is, he need only walk down the hall, with his eyes open. Then perhaps he should focus his noon meeting on the whole LANL broken incentive structures, which rewards the very dysfunctional behavior that we see every day.
But, it strains credibility, to think that UC, disengaged from the LANL problems for 63 years, would now engage. Again, the UC incentive structure is totally against such a change.
I have tried the positive approach at LANL, many times, and CQI was such an approach. It died, because of management. It worked at Sandia. There's a lesson there.
Gary: The "running list of wasteful activities at LANL" (on sidebar) is a good starting point for a list of things to work on, if you are serious about this.
To Anonymous : 4/22/2005 08:34- I missed your constructive solution. Just to identify a general problem isn't helpful. The lab is a large, diverse, difficult-to-manage organization. Part of the problem is developing the right processes, the right attitudes. I think this applies to workers and management.

Because of our nature, we have a superabundance of assertive workers, which is not necessarily a problem, but requires finesse on the part of management. We have challenging processes. We do not have a history of state-of-the-art grooming and training of managers. We have a bunch of managers who work long hours trying to develop solutions. John Browne was working on business solutions, which have not come yet to fruition, but are in process.

Pete Nanos and Fred Tarantino are pushing the organization to its limits to organize the business base of the weapons program so that we can be accountable and effective in dealing with the divisions and the customer. With regard to these developing solutions:
Are they ripe? I don't think so.
Can they be criticized? Of course.
Will they gore someone's sacred cow? Sure.
Do they solve all problems? Of course not.
Are there other process and organizational problems that have not yet been addressed? I expect so.
But managers and their staffs are trying hard, doing their best for the institution.
The same observations can be made of Carolyn Mangeng's office, Paul Hommert's division, Scott Gibbs office, etc.
Will DOE/US/Congress allow us to stay on track long enough to obtain success? Will the contract competition and ensuing changes derail current efforts? We will see. Could we use a better “quality” basis for our processes and products? Sure can.

At the same time, the staff throughout the laboratory are working hard to accomplish their missions with characteristic excellence and energy. But whining and bellyaching of associates are energy and morale killers. Lets get finished with the hanging items from the startup, where they still remain. Lets focus on our mission and recover our public respect.

BTW, Pete Nanos stopped me on campus today because of Tuesday's editorial. I was able to ask him the two questions Scott and Steve posed to me at lunch yesterday:
-Do you hate DX and are you trying to punish it?
Paraphrased answer: "Are you crazy? We need DX and their capabilities! They are critical to our work and I have been out to see them numerous times, reviewed facilities, had brown bags with them, etc. What else can I do?"
-Well, do you have antipathy to explosive operations?
Paraphrased answer: Repeat of last answer and comment that when managing Arrowhead, there were numerous safety issues in which magazines were blowing up and that he worked hard on the safety issues, which may have been interpreted as hostility. Successfully saved Arrowhead facility from BRAC closure. We need all aspects of explosives to be present, healthy, and safe at LANL, except maybe that explosives production could be done elsewhere. "Please tell those guys that they are reading me completely wrong. And by the way, integrity is everything. If we do not have that, we have nothing."

From the tenor of some posts here, some will not believe anything Nanos says. For those who have open minds, but doubts, consider that misunderstandings, miscommunications, and misinterpreted actions are the basis of tragedy, because they cause avoidable harm. If you ascribe malevolence to someone, what is the basis of your special insight to make that judgment?

For those who will be coming to our collegial lunch meeting Thursday, my wife has promised to send some of her great sweet rolls. First come first served.
"Please tell those guys that they are reading me completely wrong. And by the way, integrity is everything. If we do not have that, we have nothing."

I heard the message loudly and clearly the first time: we (experimentalists, theorists, firing point workers, emergency responders, support staff, technicians, etc.) are all nothing but expendable, in the eyes of Nanos.

I submit that Nanos has nothing.

Please enjoy your lunch Gary.

-anonymous, but not stupid
Putting on my organizational behaviour hat, it seems to me that a large part of the LANL-Nanos problem has to do with a conflict of management styles. Nanos is a hard-core Theory X manager, which is a highly inefective style with the organization he was thrust into.

For more information, Google on Hersey and Blanchard and look at their Situational Leadership model. There are, of course, other models out there, as the nature of leadership (made or born?) has puzzled academics forever.

Nanos is a Type 1 manager ("I'm right, you're wrong - shut up!") while many of the TSMs are Type 4 employees. The most effective style for dealing with Type 4s is delegating, not commanding and punishing (the 9/80 still sticks in my craw). I'm conviced that this huge mismatch between Nanos' management style and employee expectations is a large part of our current problem. And the tougher things get, the deeper Nanos reverts to his "Sargeant Carter" persona.

The problem is compounded by the nature of the people who are attracted to (and succeed at) high level R&D: they don't like being ordered around and having their professionalism insulted as buttheads and cowboys. They tend to be prima donas who expect the overhead functions to support their efforts, not vice-versa. They see our bloated and arrogant overhead structure ($140K for a thieving Facilities Manager?) as a total insult.

Nanos started off with most staffers giving him the benefit of the doubt due to the tumultuous circumstances of his appointment to the directorship, but he wasted the opportunity to lead.

Gary, I think your intentions are honorable, but the damage has been done. If Nanos told us that the sun would rise in the East on Monday, half the staff would call him a liar. Most of us are waiting for the contract change in hopes that new leadership (we'll see later if it's a team) will get us back on track to do the work that the taxpayers are trusting us to do.

I can't afford to lose my job, so I won't be coming to your lunch. Please let us know via the blog what transpired.

BTW, I think I saw John Browne heading in the direction of Bill Press' office today - maybe something is afoot.
Naively is a pathogen that infects logic in all of us. Gary seems to be trying to speak to managers but how many people has he ever managed, family excluded? I believe the answer is zero. Has he ever been a group leader, a deputy group leader, a division leader, a deputy group leader? I believe the answer is no. Has he ever had to close out a budget and worry if the increased overheads in the coming year would sabotage programs and impact careers? I think the answer is no. Has he ever had to RIF someone because of falling budgets or an inane change in laboratory policy? I think the answer is no. Has he ever had to console an employee who was placed on investigative leave or disciplined for no real cause? I believe not. Has he himself ever been abused in front of his peers by a serial abuser? I doubt it. Has he ever brought any new work into the laboratory? The answer I believe is no. Please understand this is not an attack on Peter Nanos' messenger. It is only a test of his credentials that he intends to apply toward helping me understand my roles and responsiblilities as a manager in this once great Laboratory. I'm sorry, Gary. I don't think I will be able to attend your luncheon so don't save a sweet roll for me.

BTW. the Virginia delegation will be thrilled to find out that it was Nanos who saved one of the best posts in the Navy, Arrowhead Point, from the BRAC.

Gromphadorhina Portentosa, PhD
"If you don't have integrity you have nothing." Pete, even that's not true because you have Gary Stradling. Then on second thought....

How can the public ever trust a place
like this with Nanos in charge? He himself
cannot be trusted. (1) He lied about
the Physics Today article and the safety
numbers. (2) He lied about standing in
Maceys window if he was wrong. (3) Where
are the Dec issues of Physics Today?
(4) He went the public and said we have
a culture problem. He gave no evidence
for this. He never said anything about this before July 2004. (5) He lied about
there being a spike in the publication
record. (6) He lied to congress about
the price of the shutdown. (7) He lied
to congress about the lab being behind
him. (8) He said there where willfull violations, not true. (9) He said Brad
Holian perjured himself. This is a lie.
(10) He read off a letter from the
ask Pete mail during Sream II from
a member of my group. What the member
said was true.

Pete Nanos as far as I can tell
has some form of disorder. He has
no problem lying. He cannot be trusted.
He is a real danger to the security and
saftey of LANL. If he is not gone soon than by next year we will lose all the
best people.
Another apology. I mis-spoke about Indian Head, a NAVSEA-administered Navy energetics Facility in M. I called it Arrowhead. Too much scouting lore, I guess.

I appreciate Gromphadorhina Portentosa, PhD for being so gentle with my deficiencies. The real list is much longer, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Remember, the issue is Los Alamos and what we can do to sustain it. Bile, hatred and invective cannot help.

Having lunch with me is not cause for termination. Gee!
Gary- I hope to attend your lunch. I also hope Pete comes down from the 4th floor and attends long as he sits down and shuts up for a change. We have heard his side. We have heard his view of the future. We have heard his sea stories. We have heard his arrogant attitude toward subbordinates. If he has an ounce of sense, he will come and find out just exactly why he is so distrusted. Who knows, it might help him in a future job?

"Please tell those guys that they are reading me completely wrong. And by the way, integrity is everything. If we do not have that, we have nothing."

Give me a break. Practice what you preach... Take responsibility for destroying LANL, likely damaging national security for years (if not forever), destroying numerous programs and careers, abusing staff, stacking senior management with a bunch of worthless egomaniacs that don't know the defintion of integriy (Cobb the satelliter, Fred the bechtel beast, Susan the she-monster, Dave the infrastructor, John the functionless, Tom the empty-talker, Doug the diversifier, Terry the trying,....), the list goes on.

Here is a suggestion Dir. Nanos and your senior staff. Apply this principle to yourselves. Who is responsible for the shutdown witchhunt and Appndx F performance assessment failure? Answer with integrity and take responsibility, then resign. That action should have occurred about 2 months ago, but no. Not enough integrity I guess.
If DX is so important, why has it not be given permission by the director to resume level 2 and level 3 work? The final COMPASS schedule indicates that DX will not resume operation until hydro 3612 is completed in June.
Gary, you must not believe that the director has retaliated against those who opposed him. The fact is we have lost access to the knowledge of many senior people, including a lab fellow, as a result of the witch hunt conducted during the stand down last summer. You must be OK with that.
It's too late to save DX. Physics division will assume responsibility for DX functions and try to work up the learning curve.

For God's sake man, do you not see the
issue of Los Alamos and Nanos are the same. Trust me on this the good people
will be leaving. I cannot tell you the
number of staff in my division who are
going to look very soon for outside jobs. This will destroy Los Alamos as
a scienetific institute. I am not even sure they could make this a pit facilty after this. Gary, come on buddy, go with your gut on this one.
It is time to face the truth on this.

What qualifications DO you have to support your position as PADNWP? Are you just an example of what's wrong with LANL management selection; promotion by "who you know" not "what you've accomplished"?

Is your recent blog and public editorial effort just political posturing for self-gain? To put it plainly, are you looking for a promotion or to gain political capital?
Gary Stradling admits to being employed in PADNWP. Maybe if he were in HR or PS he might have more credibility.

For those who do not get it, this is SARCASM!
4/23/2005 07:38:05 AM doesn't know what he's talking about. Gary isn't management of PADNWP, he's in PADNWP. He's just a regular guy (staff member) like the rest of us. As to any other hidden motives by Gary; Gary will have to answer that. However, I can't see why anyone with any sense would stick his neck out in this tumultuous, uncertain environment like Gary has unless (1) they're crazy or (2) they really do care and have some serious gonads...
The answer is: (3) selective ignorance of the tyrannical realities going on about him plus a cheap opportunity to ingratiate himself with the abuser. Kissing up requires no testicular fortitude.
[4/22/2005 11:09 you must not believe that the director has retaliated against those who opposed him. ]
I do not know if there have been instances of retaliation or even unfair discipline, or by whom, though I have registered the accusations. In the 4/19 editorial, I was emphatic that such should not occur and when if such happens they should be made right. The different sides of such matters often use different data to make their cases. If you make a public fuss, you should be willing to expose ALL of the facts to public examination. The Lab should be willing to make its justifications public too, if the complainant agrees. I was puzzled that you folks did not rally around that point. If you have confidence in your accusations, it should support your case.

[4/22/2005 11:57 do you not see the issue of Los Alamos and Nanos are the same?]
Indeed, that is part of my point. To loose the dogs of reckless and anonymous character assassination at the Director, even given his faults, damages the institution.

[4/22/2005 07:00 Gary seems to be trying to speak to managers but how many people has he ever managed, family excluded? …an attack on Peter Nanos' messenger. It is only a test of his credentials that he intends to apply toward helping me understand my roles and responsiblilities as a manager in this once great Laboratory.
Gromphadorhina Portentosa, PhD]

Re-messenger: Maybe I am sorry to have relayed Nanos’ comments. I knew you would jump on the integrity comment, because a number of you consider him a liar and tabulate any apparent inconsistencies to prove it. My objective is not to be his apologist or messenger, but to call for calm, reasoned, and supportable discussion.
Re- qualifications to intervene in this blog: Golly-Doug, Brad, and I are the only ones whose bonafides can be evaluated in this discussion. For all I know, you are an agent provocateur from an anti-nuclear, LANL-hating, NGO (Is that you G.?). Certainly, if you currently hold a management position at LANL, then given your responsibility, I am ashamed of your lack of integrity and perspective to join in this public pillorying of your leaders. Doug Roberts had not listed a requirement for management experience to be allowed to post here, much less to give advice to LANL management. So your comment is ironic in several dimensions.

[4/23/2005 07:38 What qualifications DO you have to support your position as PADNWP? promotion by "who you know" not "what you've accomplished"? are you looking for a promotion or to gain political capital?] Oh, lets not talk about me, its embarrassing. I would be happy to privately share with you the interesting and challenging experiences that make up my career to date. Some are commonplace and some are not. Wouldn’t it be great if assignments in our organization were always based on demonstrated capability? Do you really think the 4/19 editorial was a career-enhancing statement in the kind of management environment you assert exists? I would like to enjoy the respect of my peers, particularly those who, in addition to technical excellence, have their own backbones, sense of fairness and vision of the role and contribution of this still-great institution. You might ask yourself about the character and motivations those who would denigrate someone who calls for calm, constructive, and fair discussion.

There is a lot of work to do and an exciting time ahead. Do you realize the opportunity and challenge of the RRW initiative? Explosives, design, hydros, systems analysis, engineering, Pu and U metallurgy and engineering, physics experiment, interface with DoD! Pete went to the mat and successfully persuaded national leaders that there was a rational and constructive path forward for the nation that also would help LANL recover from the doldrums of the ‘90s. That takes a level of vision, courage, and political finesse not often seen of late. I give him a lot of credit for it, while hoping for management success with the myriad other challenges the lab faces, and wishing he could garner your support. Lets roll up our sleeves and get to it.
Gary Stradling
We have wasted enough energy on answering this person who seems bent on talking instead of listening. He has been successful in his mission of diverting our attention away from catastrophic problems at the laboratory. Only for the diversion of this minor flanking movement can he claim laurels of success from his director. I recommend that we allow him to respond to his own posting and enjoy the Otowi Cafeteria by himself. Enough is enough.
Gary, you sound like one creepy dude.
Gary, the "opportunity and challenge" of the RRW initiative will sadly be wasted because LANL will lose the Phase 2 competition with LLNL. Why?

1. Track record. Look at the dismal record of recent LANL weapons programs. Pits? DARHT 2nd axis? Hydro program? Other on-going programs? We are not starting from a position of strength here. Perhaps comparing the weapons background of senior LLNL and LANL management might give a clue as to why we are so challenged.

2. Organization. The silly-ass PADNWP organization you belong to is a big contributor to to the LANL organizational problems. I don't care how many earned value viewgraphs PADNWP produces, the complete separation of programmatic and technical responsiblities is a joke and a disaster for the lab. You can't really think PADNWP represents anything but a huge indicator that our management does not even understand the lab mission.

Even with top notch technical participants, this will not even be close. The fact that LLNL will look good winning RRW is a testament to the fact that UC can in fact support the nuclear weapons mission. The fact that LANL will look so bad losing is a testament to the complete lack of experience and understanding of the mission by on-site LANL management at nearly all levels.
From Gary Stradling
4/23/2005 08:20 “this person who seems bent on talking instead of listening.”] What have you said that is constructive? There is a “Running list of wasteful activities at LANL” , that suggests that someone somewhere should do something. All you can seem to come up with is “fire the Director”. Then what? Resolving those issues, many of which are genuine problems, takes constructive effort, engagement and good ideas. If you think the Restart was painful, think what disruption will occur if another manager takes over LANL and installs their way of running the Lab.

[4/23/2005 08:29 “Gary, you sound like one creepy dude.”] Come to lunch Thursday and find out how bad it is.

[4/23/2005 09:2 “RRW initiative will sadly be wasted because LANL will lose the Phase 2 competition with LLNL”] Your pessimism is debilitating. Optimism is enabling. I choose optimism because of the kind of “can do” people who have dedicated their careers to Los Alamos and the nation and the tradition they have established—oh, yeah—and the great technical capability that has been built here.

RRW will be a challenge because of the heavy workload already on our plates, the proposed schedule, funding constraints, and the technical requirements. LLNL will give us a run for our money. Your attitude would have us not even bother. Get a grip.

Programmatic management and controls enable many organizations to excel. Embrace them, rather than fight them. Make them work for your program. Be engaged in positive and constructive feedback so that programmatic/technical disconnects get resolved. Learn to use program management tools to win the cost/schedule/scope food fight.
I still support your engagement here and wish people would lose (not loose!) the personal attacks on you. I also still disagree with your premise that Nanos is just a misunderstood character with really bad PR skills. However, I am curious, what level of incompetance would cause you to question the leadership capability of Nanos? Make no value judgement; just what actions on his part would make you want him out? Is there any level, or would you support him as one of the "remaining 10" to rebuild LANL? For me, the "tipping point" came when Nanos unfairly and ruthlessly attacked people I know well and then piled up an increasingly public and vindictive story to defend his misguided actions even after he was shown beyond any reaonable doubt to be full of baloney. He still owes each and every one of us an apology (at Macy's if need be) and, perhaps unfortunately, a letter of resignation. For myself, anyway, I think I will feel that way unil there are 11 people left at LANL. I don't care if we have to (publicly) chew off an arm to make it happen; This gangrenous infection must go. The sooner the better.

The fiscal year is more than half over and X Division has not yet identified and authorized a team of people to work on RRW. This is shaping up to be a pro forma effort, not a serious attempt to win a Phase 2 award.
Gary, while it is nice that you are optimistic, the point is that even with the best "can do" people, inept leadership will seal the fate of the effort. How will this be any different?

Nobody questioned the need for programmatic management or project controls - they have a place. The question was about LANL organization and leadership.

Frankly Gary, your attitude would have us all smiling and nodding optimistically as we marched off the cliff. After we lose will you realize why? After we lose and you see the magnatude of the disaster will you question the leadership? We are supposed to act like sheep on the way to slaughter?

I think you have the answer to your question already in Gary's comments. Nanos supported the RRW and therefore Nanos can do no wrong in Gary's eyes.

Gary states, "Pete went to the mat and successfully persuaded national leaders that there was a rational and constructive path forward for the nation that also would help LANL recover from the doldrums of the ‘90s. That takes a level of vision, courage, and political finesse not often seen of late. I give him a lot of credit for it..."

Perhaps if Nanos did not support Gary's RRW project this discussion might be very different.

I am glad that someone in the higher-ups is at least reading this blog. However, what I don't think you understand is how little difference it really will make. Yes, I understand that my pessimism is a choice, as you optimism is your choice. But my pessimism is based on a lot of data, not just blind emotions. I have been to numerous brown bag lunches with Pete and members of the SET where we were told that it was a place that we could ask any questions we felt important. However, what it turned into was Pete doing his usual response.

I am sure that most readers of this blog have seen this response. It generally involves Pete starting to answer your question. Then he starts to get angry at the question itself. It finally falls apart with a complete angry breakdown with no real answer being given. At no point will Pete have actually listened to your concern. He just gets mad. And when that happens, I have a real hard time taking him seriously when he claims that we are good people doing important work. He loses all credibility with me.

What is even worse though is that usually the people asking these questions get chewed out by upper management for asking them.

My questions for you aree these: why should people show up to yet another one of these sessions where no real dialogue is capable of occuring (since Pete is not capable of listening)? Why should we waste our time and energy by getting nothing but frustrated by Pete's inability to listen to what we have to say and what our concerns are? Why should we put ourselves in the place to get chastised by upper management when it is all over?

As for me, I have wasted way too much time in a room with the SET or Pete to really think that it matters. My blood pressure is way too high and I have developed an ulcer. I have been dupped way too many times into similar meetings and have vowed to not attend another one.

So good luck with your lunch, Gary. I, for one, intend to have other plans.

You have to get rid of Nanos before
anything else good can happen. I
will leave in year if Nanos is still
hear. The mobile people in my divsion
have said the same. The less mobile
will retire. The same may true elswhere. We are cutting back on
postdocs and students. Well that
speaks well for the future. If Nanos
stays it is the end of LANL.

As for being positive. Well a lot of
us are. A number of people in my
division are starting to make some
moves for other places and visiting.
One of my co-workers got a great
tenured offer with a salary close to
what he gets at LANL. His position
will also come with some future hires. It is indeed very nice. I
also had some very positive responses
from some places. There are a lot of
nices places around the US. I am
sort of glad that this is helping
open my eyes to other positions.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?