Readers, Weigh In: Sick of the Bronfman Contest?

Rodin’s Thinker
Rodin’s “Thinker,” sourced from Wikipedia
I’m Listening

Readers, please weigh in. Are you sick of hearing about the Bronfman contest on this blog?

It has pretty much taken over the time and energy that I devote to blogging, while entries about more direct Jewish philanthropy have fallen a bit to the wayside, simply due to time constraints of one taking over the other.

Contest Fatigue?

I was bringing you the contest and proposals because throughout the series, I was hearing feedback that that was what you wanted. But now I am getting a lot of feedback that is telling me you have series/contest fatigue.

If you don’t want to hear any more about this contest, I can publish the three main proposals that are pending and close the series down.

Bronfman News: 20 Finalists to be Published on Website

We have just learned that the top 20 contest proposals are about to be published on a public website anyhow.) Prof. Sarna says of the 20 finalists:

“These were not just programs – these were really worldviews, ways of thinking that would lead to all sorts of programs and be a kind of change agent within the Jewish community.”

It’s All About You

I blog primarily for you, so please help me in understanding your preferences and desires. Also feel free to weigh in here on anything else you might be looking for that you have read here and want more of, or that you are looking to read (or not read about here).

A series on nonprofits & technology (short, under 5 posts) and another about Israeli billionaires (about 5 posts) are pending. Do you want these or am I off-base? Your thoughts appreciated.


41 Responses to Readers, Weigh In: Sick of the Bronfman Contest?

  1. Shai says:

    I like the new ideas, and if you do, too, you should do it. Even after Brandeis’ offer we will have seen only 1 in 8 proposals. Maybe you don’t need to spend so much effort preparing them, but just the same I find the ideas interesting and relevant to philanthropy.

    Already, we see that what may be considered the top 20 might not be so according to Big Idea criteria some of us imagined, so while it will be interesting to see the semifinalists, it’ll in the end account for only 15 more ideas by (a total of 28 published ideas including your blog) that if like those already chosen, could leave us without exposure to some very good ideas. And it could say more about Brandeis than it does about Big ideas. Remains to be seen.

    So, if you’re sick of it, by all means cease. You don’t owe us anything. But if you want it, you’ve got my support.

  2. Maya Norton says:

    Hi Shai,

    Thanks for your comment. I am not tiring of the series– I find them fascinating– but e-mails from my readers are expressing some discontent, so I wanted to check in with the collective.

    I think there is the necessary input time for preparation so that they can be standardized for the sake of blogification and therefore, readability.

    Shavua tov,


  3. Shai says:

    I don’t get it. I am not into philanthropy at all (I wish I could be). I’m into Jewish community, because I feel that is news I can use – I need Jewish community to achieve what I want as a person.

    If for whatever reason Jewish comunity is a concern for Jewish philanthropy, shouldn’t the attitude of those who find it uninteresting be like it is for any article in a newspaper that’s not interesting to them? Pass over it and its comments until you find something that interests you?

    You do a great job. I am deeply impressed with the dedication to the cause you represent. You are tireless, eloquent and what I especially enjoy, incorrigibly curious. If that’s not a trait that others have, why can’t they at least admire that you do? I say kol hakavod, lean into the wind, and let the complainers complain. If they want to submit a guest article on something they like, they should be welcome to do so.

  4. Shai says:

    BTW, as you might see, my response is not a consumerist response. It’s a family business response. I think that is the way to go, and how we your readers should approach the contributions you make. We’re a part of it, not just consumers of your efforts.

  5. Maya Norton says:

    Shai, in regards to your first two paragraphs, yes, I think so, but I still want to make sure that I am on the pulse. My aim is not to please everyone as I think that’s a losing battle, but I’d like my content to be as relevant to my target audience and potential readers (read: desired) as possible. I am completely open to suggestions as to how to do that.

    Everything about blogging is a learning experience and as I say here (added to the top navigation bar on Wednesday), I started this blog to join, add to, and act as a conduit for the Jewish conversation and community.

    Third paragraph– Thanks!! Can I quote you? 🙂


  6. Maya Norton says:

    “We’re a part of it, not just consumers of your efforts.”

    I hope so, that’s certainly the aim.


  7. Shai says:

    I hear you. Yes, you can sure quote me- any time. 🙂 I have a lot more nice things to add, too.

  8. Maya,

    I would say this — If you want to avoid alienating your base readership, just make sure to put up at least one post per week *on topic*. Anything additional that is off topic but of interest to you/others, they don’t have to read!

    That said, this is *your* blog, and you have every right to be, as Anita Diamant puts it, “unapologetic” about what you choose to post 🙂

    I will say for one that I am tremendously grateful to you for having started the Bronfman series and giving me and others the opportunity to post our proposals and get some very valuable feedback. THANK YOU!!!

    All the best,

  9. Maya Norton says:

    Hi David,

    Point taken. I certainly strive for balance in that regard and hope I’ve achieved it!

    I’m so glad to have included you as well. Thanks for your generous spirit and willingness to share your ideas with us.

    I’ve responded to your comment on Shai’s Jewish Community Incubator post, but you may see this one first. Just to let you know, I sent Shai your contact information so that he can e-mail you and you can chat.

    Shavua tov,


  10. JP says:

    I enjoy the series. Without your blog the only proposals that aren’t a waste of time are the top 20 chosen by the selection committee; and their criteria are questionable at best. Keep it up please!

  11. Maya Norton says:

    So glad to hear. Thanks, JP!


  12. Ian Zwerling says:

    Id like to chime in with the comment that it is an outreach of your own professional career and a way of attracting interest and networking with others of similar interest. It is a great public service and generosity like yours is rare these days, assuming you are doing it for others reasons that self-interest.

    I think Maya has such an attractive personality which is also rare that she radiates a positive light on a dreary subject. Her enthusiasm brings new energy and enthusiasm to an important asset to our difficult situation.

    I know why she quoted Obama, and we took her to task but she has the same sunny optimism and disposition which is probably the greatest element of achieving success in life. I think she is a great role model and inspiration and will find great success in life. I think she will be of great help to many people because she has a good heart and great head. I think everyone can agree that she is a blessing to all of us and to Israeli society and Jewish culture.

    I wish her all the luck in the world. She has charisma for all the right reasons while Barak has for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion.

  13. Maya Norton says:

    Thank you, Ian. I really appreciate it. That means a lot coming from you.


  14. Ian Zwerling says:

    Im sure people will want to respond to the 20 semi-finalists proposals after reading them on this blog. Ill be interested in seeing if it was a job search for a contest. I suspect the former.

  15. Gary Kulwin says:

    Hi, Maya –

    I agree with what others have written here – your Big Ideas Series has been a truly important, almost indespensible, presence on the Jewish Internet; little other coverage was available during the previous couple of months. I hope that you will consider keeping the series going at least through the end of the contest. Look, the official contest will be over soon enough anyway – by early March (roughly three weeks from today) there will be little left to write about. In addition to posting the three proposals you have ready have on hand, I would expect that the only other articles you could conceivably post (assuming no other proposals appear in your in-box) we would be these:

    an announcement of the semi-finalists’ website when it appears
    an announcement of the final winning proposal
    an article on the rest of the Jewish media reaction (if any) to the contest
    a final end of series summary/”where do we go from here” article

    In other words, the essence of the question is whether you should publish three or four more articles. I personally think: Why Not? Soon enough your writing will be exclusively devoted to other topics (unless you get trapped in some scary “Big Idea Limbo”, or if you decide to devote a second blog exclusively to the truly “Big Idea” of describing other Big Ideas).

    As I recently noted in a comment on my own blog, I personally think that you may have been the driving force behind the decision to post the 20 semi-finalists’ proposals. Of course, I could be completely wrong on how this came about, but your blog highlighted the necessity (in the Internet Age) to make discussions on important topics like this (the future of the Jewish people) accessible to all. To put it another way: this is not Julius Rosenwald’s “Big Idea” contest (and, if he were still alive, I suspect that Mordechai Kaplan would certainly have launched his own blog).

    Even with a new, more official contest site in the making, your site could still have added value for at least two reasons. First, you have published many proposals beyond the circle of finalists (and you could still be asked to post more, if additional proposers show up “out of the woodwork”). Second (and probably more importantly), you permit your readers to post critiques at the end of each proposal. This has created a really unique dialogue among authors and readers. I appreciated being able to comment I what I read here, and I truly enjoyed having my proposal critiqued here. (Honestly, I think that if I had a week of Shai’s time to debate and refine our proposals, we could have come up with something extraordinary. Sending me to Israel for a week to kibbitz with Shai – now that’s a great Big Idea!). 🙂

    I wonder whether the official contest site will permit users to comment on the proposals. This could require somebody to moderate the site, and it could conceivably turn into a bigger administrative headache than the sponsors want to take on. I would also think that the contest organizers may be sensitive to the reaction in the Jewish press, and hosting a potential “free for all” debate on their site may risk hurting the image of the contest (even if it actually strengths its ultimate impact by fostering sustained discussion on Jewish continuity).

    On a side note, I wonder if the fact that some of us have commented on the previously posted proposals here has led to some of the feedback that you have been getting. In other words, are some of your readers upset that the contest coverage continues to drag on, or are they really upset in the way the Big Ideas are getting covered? When I first saw this request for us to “weigh in”, I thought about the critique that I just submitted on Anita Diamant’s proposal. Perhaps I critiqued her proposal more “roughly” than if it had come in from an unknown writer. I am not sure if the finalists want to be put on the “hot seat” here, having their proposals dissected by a group of writers who were just told that their material didn’t make the final cut.

    If you (or the authors, of course, as well as any of the readers) feel that it is inappropriate to permit readers’ comments following the upcoming proposal articles, then I would support a decision to suspend this feature. Of course, I would still feel free (as I’m sure others would) to make comments about these articles elsewhere, either on your blog or on our own blogs. Alas, such is the nature of the Internet – while some decorum might be preserved, all ideas (whether good or bad) are somehow meant to be published. BTW, if somebody really does have problems with the direction our collective conversation is heading, I wish that they would post something here (even anonymously) rather than simply write to you privately. We might all be better off knowing what’s on their minds.

    Finally, as others have, let me thank you again for permitting me to post my own proposal and desultory comments here. You have significantly expanded the reach of my thoughts, and I am truly grateful for that.

    Regards, GK

  16. Shai says:

    I want to amend my previous comment. I am, honestly, very disappointed in how the contest was managed. I feel Brandeis misinformed and misled us. I hope it wasn’t intentional, but I sense the vagueness and secrecy with which they initiated, judged and conducted the process was meant to serve their purposes more than the community’s. I am, if I were to have to find a word to describe it, sick of them.

    So, while I am not sick of hearing all the ideas, and I think we should continue to see as many as people would like to submit, I no longer feel any desire (or need) to assess the proposals based on any criteria Brandeis used. I find that they have lost a great deal of credibility in the manner with which they’ve managed the competition, and I seriously doubt they’ll get a similar response (more than 200) submissions next time. They should have issued an invitational contest now, and again in two years from now, and just left the rest of us continue to believe that we laypersons will always be, as we’ve always believed, outside their universe.

    For me this is an especially difficult admission. I believe deeply that influence is the only means communities have of combatting apathy. I really thought that a leadership that sought Big Ideas and issued a public invitation to resolve the problem was offering, in a very real sense, the ability to “influence” to us. My hopes on this were dashed, and another log of apathy has been tossed on the fire of community dissolution. Bronfman made a mistake giving this contest to Brandeis. He should have given it to a group like the Nathan Cummings Foundation, with whom I’ve come to be impressed. They are truly a professional Jewish organization of the first caliber, and I think they would have managed the contest in a way that strengthened our community.

    Unfortunately, by missing the potential in this opportunity, both Bronfman and Brandeis have I think caused us to take a step backward, irrespective of the merit of any of the Finaists’ proposals. Pity.

  17. Shai says:

    Gary, the week idea is fine 🙂

    Anyway, don’t you think that anybody who professes to offer a “Big Idea” that refuses to defend it makes of their idea something smaller, by making themselves and their thin skin the issue and not the idea?

    This is an issue our culture has addressed since the Rennaisance when artists began signing the works of art they made. Who is at issue, the idea, or the conveyor of the idea?

    You and I both had both our first and last names assocaited with the ideas we presented. I don’t think we had anything less to lose than anyone else, and the courage it takes to stand up in a forum and accept criticism on behalf of your idea is part of the process of improving it. If ideas merely were some conveyance to advance our careers, perhaps you’d be right and such persons should never be finalists in any competition that professes to advance community interests. But when community interests are at stake, in my view I could give a damn if the competition sponsors think it’s too much trouble or too risky to put the matter up for public debate. That’s where it belongs.

  18. Gary Kulwin says:

    Hi, Shai –

    Boy, you really get up early! Wasn’t it a little before 6 A.M. (Israel time) when you posted the last reply? Anyway, it’s great to get such a quick reply to my thoughts.

    I agree with you in principle (actually, to be truthful, more than just in principle) on the need for authors (especially in a contest like this one) to be ready to defend their ideas. Whether or not the contest’s sponsors are completely serious in their intent, the role of this contest has been extremely serious indeed – the first formal request in my lifetime, by any Jewish body of stature, to present proposals on ways to sustain the Jewish Future. Many people (like you and me, and apparently most of the other readers and writers here on Maya’s blog) spend most of our lives worrying about this kind of stuff.

    That said, Anita Diamont’s proposal (and my visceral reaction to it) caused me some soul-searching. Not that I want to beat up on her any further, but the optimistic tone in her essay regarding the state of American Jewry was not what I would have expected in a finalist’s proposal. I don’t want to patronize her – she’s a “big girl”, and certainly an established force in Jewish literature – but I felt somewhat guilty for panning her essay, as if the fault were not really hers (but the selection committee’s) for upsetting me.

    You see, the real problem for me is that this proposal was labelled a finalist – thus officially being “stamped” (by serious people) as a significant statement on Jewish life today, whether or not the proposal makes the final cut in March. I think that I might actually enjoy reading the Minhag America book, if it ever came out. However, I doubt (based on the preview) that I would ever consider it to be a foundational text on the state of Jewish life today.

    I think that we would both ultimately agree that the real source of the problem is the structure of this contest. To be fair (if that’s even still possible) to the organizers, I doubt that they had a real clue as to all of the reactions that an event like this would stir up. The fact is, too many people are devoting a good chunk of their energies and thoughts to keeping our people going. A contest on this scale, if implemented correctly, would need to take itself much more seriously as well.

    A couple of practical suggestions for them: I think that they should have taken a closer look at the design of the 1920s contest, and stretched out the evaluation and selection process over a very lengthy period (one or two years). Five page proposal summaries should have been converted into 25 or 50 page essays, and then reviewed by both the public and scholarly committees. In addition, trying to find “one best proposal” on this topic now sounds futile to me; identifying five or ten top-tier proposals makes much more sense.

    Above all, if we are trying to implement concrete projects out of this effort, there should be some way to “hand off” our ideas to others for further refinement. In other words, while I am proud to be the author of my proposal, I am not certain that I would be the best author of a “Hebrew Nation” text (at the least, a more scholarly co-author would come in handy). And, without a doubt, I would be utterly unqualified to operate my own charter school, language institute, or mini-mall. This is the point where real project incubators are called for.

    Anyway, off to feeding the cat and bed for me (I’ll be dreaming about you guys in Israel, I hope).

    Kol Tuv, GK

  19. Shai says:

    Hi GK.

    I don’t believe the structure of the contest automatically led to the results. I believe that the contest achieved the results it did because that structure is overlaid by values that are different than the competition guidelines suggested they were. The two guidelines we received as examples were a conceptual project (Kaplan’s) and a practical one (Birthright). That vaguary is fine, but I think contestants are entitled to expect that those guidelines would be used. Those guidelines were not just projects pregnant with “practical implications”. I wouldn’t have entered the contest if I thought the judges were content merely with exploring ideas as one shops in a boutique, for something fine and rare to be appreciated on a shelf under a crisp, cool, halogen spotlight. No, I was looking for a process of getting down and dirty and seeing how our thoughts about ourselves and our community really tick. I can’t think of any of the Finalist proposals that do that. NOt a single one, and if there is, show me.

    I’d argue further that the evidence shows that Organizations (Jewish organizations among them) tend to be more interested in their own survival than the cause they espouse. They use the cause as a host, and one gets the impression that the concern about the Jewish community’s demise on the part of some is more due to worries about the lost of the host (in the non-altruistic sense) as a value in and of itself. I’ll clarify, since this is easily misinterpreted. I’m not claiming that most Jews want to see the Jewish community disappear, or that professional Jewish community managers see the value of community the way a dock worker sees the docks. That said, the point of a Big Idea contest is to ensure the Jewish community thrives, and it comes with a recognition that something is going horribly wrong right now.

    Fixing that entails developing institutions that achieve that goal, not asking the community to bend itself to the existing institutions simply because those are the institutions our leadership knows how to run. I hope I’ve made clear what I mean. The process in this contest has given me cause to doubt that we will ever be able to get out of our own ways. We had this discussion in your comment list – about how organizations behave. Ideally, they’d behave the way I want but you noted that your more cynical view was geared to how they actually behave. Im shocked at the accuracy of your observation, and paniced by its implications for us. The implications are truly grave.

    Regarding Diamant, I wouldn’t lose sleep about it. Whatever her intentions for her submission and her career, the ideas that underlay her idea are either defensible or not to some degree. Those ideas exist in some Aristotelian fashion “out there”, and Diamant is merely a vessle for them. How criticism happens is of course an issue, as people can have their feelings hurt. But some ideas are actually meant to provoke in this way, especially ideas that are not apologetic, wouldn’t you think? Such an approach deserves an equal and opposite reaction.

    We’re all trying to find our own way, Gary. But I don’t believe matters of “pride-of-authorship” as a value trump in any way the value of community survival, especially when the authorship claims to be dedicated to that value. I am not speaking of Diamant alone here, to be clear. That connection deserves to be examined, to see if the former serves the latter. Yes, the way it’s done is an issue. But that it’s done is not. Not for me, anyway.

  20. […] I asked if you were sick of the Bronfman contest. Most of you said no. I have an agreement over e-mail with someone that s/he will skip the blog for […]

  21. ARB says:

    I agree with much of what has been said above. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Shai and Gary!

    The statements about some mainstream Jewish organizations caring more about themselves than the community made me think of this article:

    It explains how the amazing Phyllis Chesler (I made her sound like a circus performer, oops) wrote a book on anti-Semitism, and then was attacked by mainstream Jewish organization because she was then viewed as competition. When I read the article (after I submitted my “big idea”, but before the results to the contest were announced) I thought: what am I potentially getting myself into? My life would be a lot easier if I don’t win.

    As far as the comments about the contest, or more accurately, criticisms of it, I tend to agree that the rules were vague, and possibly misleading. I think back to a comment Shai made in a past thread, which now seems very accurate. I’m paraphrasing, but he said that in his opinion the winning proposals would more likely be an idea which would be good to write about, rather than a plan, or a practical idea such as his museum, or my tangible plan to fight anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. This seems to have been the case.

    Ariel Beery’s idea seemed to have been chosen more for his “creative Zionism” ideology (I still have no clue what that means, but I look forward to learning more) than his coffee-house/get together place for young adults plan. Likewise, the other proposals seemed to have been ideologies, rather than plans (I could be wrong).

    If I was to submit my proposal again, knowing what I do now, I would make a number of changes.

    1. I would not solely concentrate on fighting anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in academia. It is a controversial topic for a school to get behind, even though I see the problems most prevalent there. My new proposal would focus on tackling these problems more generally, in many different areas of life. This would expand the scope and require much more work, but since they were looking for an ideology, not a plan, then I shouldn’t wirry about practicality.

    2. I would label my proposal with a vague name, that has the word “future” or something similar in it. I would also make the title sound cool, but completely vague.

    3. I would frame my idea as an ideology, not as a plan, or anything concrete. For example,

    a. Ensuring Foundational Jewish Civil Rights for the Future
    b. Safeguarding Jewishness for the 22nd century and beyond
    c. Increasing Tolerance and Acceptance for the next Jewish generation
    d. Jewish Sustaining future ideology for the new world (jk)

    4. I would incorporate the use of facebook, and I would also add a non-digital component, such as proposing offices, or places where people can discuss problems and generate solutions. Although I wouldn’t spend too much time on that aspect because the ideology seems to be more important than the plan.

    5. I would stress the research and the book idea more than the plan of action, or the concrete proposal. They are looking for an ideology, or a way of thinking, rather than something that can be implemented. I don’t necessarily mean that negatively, but the contest organizers seem to want other people to take the initiative after reading the book.

    6. I would be as positive as possible. It wouldn’t be possible at all with my proposal to avoid talking about problems, but other people should gloss over current problems as much as possible, or not talk about them at all.

    Those are just a few thoughts. I tried not to be snarky, but I don’t know how successful I was. I might submit something for the next contest in two-years, but I would approach my proposal with a different mindset, and expectation.

  22. Maya Norton says:

    Hey there, ARB,

    Snark welcome if not encouraged. Makes for more entertaining reading at times.

    Now I will have to learn more about the Amaaaaaazing Phylis Chesler.

    I’ve just copied my correspondence here with Prof. Sarna with my questions and his responses, which I know you will be interested in reading (and in turn, I’m interested in hearing your reaction).

    I’m very interested to learn what you would have done differently given what we now know of the contest. I think you really have your pulse on what we’ve learned so far from the news that has been released from Brandeis. While I don’t advocate the changes in a vacuum– you know I think your proposal was very strong to begin with– I think it does give a view of how foundations and organizations want things their way and how the submittants are best off trying to meet those terms if they want to succeed along regulation lines.

    I think I am going to call you Nachshon from now on, after the first person willing to walk into the Reed/Red Sea after G-D declared that he would part the waters for Moses, for your willingness to be the first to share your proposal. (Just to be perfectly clear, that analogy is for you alone and draws absolutely no comparison with this blog being G-D or Moses, lol. Heaven forfend.)


  23. Nachshon says:

    I’ll be proud to have that nickname. Thanks.

    As far as your correspondence with Prof. Sarna, I wish he could provide more information. At this point I think he is just being tight lipped because the contest is still ongoing. Let’s hope he provides more detailed information, or comments on the contest in greater depth in the future.

    I appreciate your kind words about my project.

    Maybe we could try to encourage a generous Jewish philanthropist to start another contest, with the prize being the funding of some great ideas, rather than a teaching job?

  24. Shai says:

    Nachshon, which of the proposals rose to the level of ideology? I wish. Maybe Kurtzer’s – haven’t seen it yet.

    I think I got the same impression as you. They are too enamored of the marketing and not enough of the substance.

  25. Maya Norton says:


    If you are changing your name to Nachshon, make sure you still link to your blog to get those follow-throughs. Maybe we can keep you as ARB since that what people know you as and I will think of you as Nachshon (which actually sounds better in its anglicized version of Naushon).

    Shai, I don’t even know if I am spelling it right. Is it Nachshon or Nachson? I know you know.


  26. Shai says:

    Nachshon – Nachshon ben Aminadav. He can call himself ARB/NBA. 🙂

  27. Maya Norton says:

    Exactly, that’s the Nachshon ben Aminav I’m thinking of. Do we know anything more about Nachshon or Aminadav? Do they come up anywhere else in the story or midrash?

    ARB/NBA: All those letters– he’s going to become even more enigmatic.

    Well, the only thing anyone really needs to know is that he has an amazing blog and is doing really important work– whomever he may be (dun dun dun).


  28. Thanks for the great compliments on my blog Maya.

    For those who still aren’t sold on the idea that anti-Semitism and anti-zionism on campus are big problems, here’s a photo essay I wrote just last night after coming home from an event on a nearby campus. Warning, the pictures will make you very mad.


  29. Maya Norton says:

    Hey You (it’s shorter) 🙂

    Total torture to attend an event like that, no?


  30. texasyid says:

    how much anti -Judaism in the world today is caused by the israeli policy of breeding arabs and then sending out a % of these arabs to strenghten the arab diaspora?
    Most problems world Jewry faces today can be traced to israel!
    BTW what ever happened to former PM shamirs right hand man Levinson? Or should I say LEFTist hand man!

  31. Maya Norton says:

    Dear Sally/TexasYid,

    1. I don’t agree with you at all on this one and I don’t think your argument is well reasoned, well supported, or relevant to this post.

    2. Please stop spamming my e-mail or I will block your e-mail address. I have asked you politely several times.

    You are welcome to comment, but please keep your arguments and opinions relevant to the post at hand. Otherwise, I will consider them spam and delete them.


  32. Maya Norton says:


    Sally/TexasYid, all comments from you on this blog and all e-mails to my account will now be blocked or deleted. You are not welcome back.

  33. Phuket diving

    Readers, Weigh In: Sick of the Bronfman Contest? | The New Jew

  34. Rejuvius reviews

    Readers, Weigh In: Sick of the Bronfman Contest? | The New Jew

  35. says:

    Great goods from you, man. I’ve understand your
    stuff previous to and you are just extremely fantastic.
    I really like what you have acquired here, certainly
    like what you’re saying and the way in which you say
    it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it smart.

    I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a tremendous web site.

  36. iklan baris says:

    iklan baris

    Readers, Weigh In: Sick of the Bronfman Contest? | The New Jew

  37. At this time it looks like WordPress is the preferred blogging platform available right now.
    (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?

  38. debt freedom says:

    Hi, everything is going fine here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s genuinely fine, keep up writing.

  39. Very rapidly this site will be famous among all blogging visitors, due to it’s good posts

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: