Are you married to your content instead of your true love, your audience? Too many public speakers are guilty of this crime of passion. To be in love with your information instead of your listeners is to ruin the marriage of content and influence that makes any presentation a success.
Like many hopeless lovers, speakers can be too easily dazzled by the obvious and the pretty: the selling points and bullet points that they’ve tenderly selected for their presentation. “But this is a labor of love,” we can hear them saying. – “This proposal is exactly the way I want it to come out!”
But audiences don’t want perfect information delivery. They want a meaningful relationship with the speaker, and ideally, a positive outcome from the encounter. Regurgitating information in the face of this need is simply an embarrassment. We need to move listeners when we speak. Yes, our content is part of that equation. But there’s infinitely more needed in terms of rapport and emotional connections than can be supplied by our PowerPoint slides.
Think of it this way (and this distinction is critically important if you speak in public): A speech or presentation is a shared experience, a small example of community, in which you and your listeners make an interesting journey together.
You need to prepare for that journey by thinking about how to project such a relationship. When you spend all your time sharpening your information recital, you’re leaving that relationship up to chance. Doesn’t this sound like a recipe for disaster? After a certain point, in other words, you must forget about gathering and shaping content, and begin to rehearse your performance.
Here’s a simple formula to keep in mind: Rather than spend 100% of your time amassing content and 0% time (or close to that) practicing, make the ratio something like this:
40% creating content, 60% practicing
This sounds radical to you, doesn’t it? But remember this: You are already extremely strong on your content. It’s the reason you were hired for this position; that you spend every business day working on these issues; that you’ve been selected to make this presentation, in fact. Whether you’re aware of it, you already have content coming out of your ears!
What you don’t have if you’re a typical speaker is a maximum level of comfort on your feet, and a knack for conversing with audiences as if that’s the most natural thing in the world. You’re up there to give an oral performance, for goodness sake, not to recite facts and figures like a recorded voice on a GPS!
Strengthen the area where you’re probably weakest. Your strengths won’t disappear in the process.
Spend quality practice time—and a quantity of it as well—learning to be comfortable with audiences. Stand and move in space. Try out gestures. Solidify your eye contact. Use stories and illustrations to give your concepts a human dimension. Sometimes those stories will come to you on the spur of the moment. Use them! Develop your ear to the point where the casual conversational you (the interesting-sounding one) sounds no different from your presentation persona.
The more comfortable you are talking to people, the more you’ll feel like yourself saying the things you’re passionate about. In no time at all, you’ll find yourself loving your audience instead of your content.
Guess how your audience will respond.
Showing posts with label public speaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public speaking. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2010
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Simple Art of Learning to Breathe Properly
When I was living and acting professionally in New York, I took a course on meditation at the Himalayan Institute. Casually one day, the teacher expressed an opinion that has stayed in my mind ever since.
"We don't have an epidemic of heart disease in this country," he said. "We have an epidemic of breathing disease."
You could call that a "breathtaking" statement in itself. It certainly resonated with someone for whom--as a stage actor--breathing and breath control were central to the performance of my art.
What the teacher was saying, was that typically one's heart isn't given enough oxygen because of poor breathing habits. A heart continually deprived of an adequate supply of oxygen, of course, will fare poorly over time. Interestingly, the same careless breathing habits will negatively affect our performance as public speakers.
Breathing for speech is different from breathing for life. The latter is sometimes known as "vegetative breathing," meaning that it is passive and not aimed consciously at a goal. In speech, however, breath not only is the energizing force which powers our vocal folds, but it must be controlled to achieve desired effects. Chief among these is the need to sustain the sound, since the most important words in English usually come at the end of a phrase or sentence.
This means that, as speakers, we use controlled exhalation that is much longer than the "quick in and quick out" inhalation and exhalation of breathing for life. Naturally, then, in order to control our exhalation, we have to breathe deeply enough to form a reservoir of air that we can draw upon.
Speakers therefore should breathe more deeply than in everyday vegetative breathing. This is often a particular challenge in public speaking, when self-consciousness and adrenaline are enticing us to breathe shallowly and rapidly.
Getting a full reservoir of air that allows us to sustain our vocalization is only one benefit to slower, deeper, relaxed breathing for speech. A full rush of air that fills our lungs actually slows our heart down, calming and centering us. Try this exercise yourself: Get a baseline pulse rate at your wrist, then take a huge intake of air, pause for a few seconds, then "whoosh" it all out in a big exhalation. You should feel a distinct slowing on your pulse rate in the first few seconds afterwards.
Another reason to breathe fully and deeply is that it oxygenates our brain. And the brain needs this precious fuel if our gray matter is to function at its top efficiency. In the speech environment where thinking on one's feet is paramount, this is no small benefit either.
So, try some relaxation exercises--lying down or sitting, it really doesn't matter--that teach you to breathe slowly and more deeply. You'll feel good, be more centered and ready to speak, look good by avoiding a "caved in" appearance, and be able to support and sustain your crucial points as you talk.
One other suggestion: As you do your relaxed breathing exercise, try to get your inhalation and exhalation to be continuous, i.e., with no starting or stopping point where one begins and the other ends. Think of a figure "8" on its side, which is actually the symbol for infinity--there is no break anywhere. Unobstructed breathing like that, I believe, helps loosen the mental blockages that are so often part of our trepidation about speaking in public.
All in all, not a bad package of benefits from the simple art of learning to breathe properly, is it?
"We don't have an epidemic of heart disease in this country," he said. "We have an epidemic of breathing disease."
You could call that a "breathtaking" statement in itself. It certainly resonated with someone for whom--as a stage actor--breathing and breath control were central to the performance of my art.
What the teacher was saying, was that typically one's heart isn't given enough oxygen because of poor breathing habits. A heart continually deprived of an adequate supply of oxygen, of course, will fare poorly over time. Interestingly, the same careless breathing habits will negatively affect our performance as public speakers.
Breathing for speech is different from breathing for life. The latter is sometimes known as "vegetative breathing," meaning that it is passive and not aimed consciously at a goal. In speech, however, breath not only is the energizing force which powers our vocal folds, but it must be controlled to achieve desired effects. Chief among these is the need to sustain the sound, since the most important words in English usually come at the end of a phrase or sentence.
This means that, as speakers, we use controlled exhalation that is much longer than the "quick in and quick out" inhalation and exhalation of breathing for life. Naturally, then, in order to control our exhalation, we have to breathe deeply enough to form a reservoir of air that we can draw upon.
Speakers therefore should breathe more deeply than in everyday vegetative breathing. This is often a particular challenge in public speaking, when self-consciousness and adrenaline are enticing us to breathe shallowly and rapidly.
Getting a full reservoir of air that allows us to sustain our vocalization is only one benefit to slower, deeper, relaxed breathing for speech. A full rush of air that fills our lungs actually slows our heart down, calming and centering us. Try this exercise yourself: Get a baseline pulse rate at your wrist, then take a huge intake of air, pause for a few seconds, then "whoosh" it all out in a big exhalation. You should feel a distinct slowing on your pulse rate in the first few seconds afterwards.
Another reason to breathe fully and deeply is that it oxygenates our brain. And the brain needs this precious fuel if our gray matter is to function at its top efficiency. In the speech environment where thinking on one's feet is paramount, this is no small benefit either.
So, try some relaxation exercises--lying down or sitting, it really doesn't matter--that teach you to breathe slowly and more deeply. You'll feel good, be more centered and ready to speak, look good by avoiding a "caved in" appearance, and be able to support and sustain your crucial points as you talk.
One other suggestion: As you do your relaxed breathing exercise, try to get your inhalation and exhalation to be continuous, i.e., with no starting or stopping point where one begins and the other ends. Think of a figure "8" on its side, which is actually the symbol for infinity--there is no break anywhere. Unobstructed breathing like that, I believe, helps loosen the mental blockages that are so often part of our trepidation about speaking in public.
All in all, not a bad package of benefits from the simple art of learning to breathe properly, is it?
Friday, October 17, 2008
An Exercise for Improving Eye Contact
We've all heard that eye contact is essential for successful public speaking. Sometimes, however, looking audience members in the eye isn't easy, especially when nervousness and self-consciousness hijack our thinking.
Recently, I coached a client who had a severe case of eye-avoidedness. It was the first issue he brought up. And of course, I saw it in action immediately. Even though we sat in armchairs no more than 4 feet apart, I'd estimate that he avoided looking at me about 80% of the time.
He knew this was a problem both in presentations and interpersonal communication, but he had no idea how to overcome his shyness. And that, in fact, turned out to be an important clue for me. He mentioned that he was an introvert. One speaking trait introverts sometimes have, is a desire to "go away" in their own mind and fashion a carefully structured and gift-wrapped statement or response. In the rough-and-tumble of conversations and Q & A, however, we seldom have the luxury of doing this.
Before we tried an exercise I had in mind, I gave him the two reasons why I believe strong eye contact is critical to successful speaking situations:
1. You will never exert influence on people you don't look in the eye! When was the last time you were persuaded by someone who wouldn't look at you while he or she was talking?
2. People are easier to get a response from than the back wall. I often hear from my trainees, "But if I look anyone right in the eye, I'll forget what I'm saying!" At this point I usually respond: "Which do you think is going to give you something back, the ceiling or the person you're talking to?"
Our listeners should give us energy--not suck it out of us like an audience of vampires! Speaking to "the window of the soul" as you say something important to people, and observing their response, should be a delightful activity, not a painful one. People want you to look at them when you talk; and if you do, they'll trust you more.
As it turned out, the exercise we practiced next turned out to be even more helpful for this client than I anticipated. Here it is:
I had prepared around 20 impromptu speech topics, which I folded and placed in an envelope. My client had to reach in, choose a slip and read it, then look up at me and start talking about it. Understand: I gave him no time to prepare. (No nicely wrapped speech package possible here!)
The topics were intentionally ones that he would have no expertise in, and in fact, each topic had no right or wrong answer. They included, for instance, "What do you like about the United Nations, and why?" "What do you think was the most interesting ancient civilization?" and so on.
For a minute or two each time, my client spoke on each of the four items he'd selected. And I'd say that 90% of his responses were delivered looking directly at me, with rock-solid eye contact!
You see, he couldn't "go away" and marshall his thoughts and relevant data on the subject, for there wasn't any from his professional experience. The exercise was simple and clear: it was teaching him to look at his listeners even if he wasn't sure what he was about to say. He had to attempt to reach his listener with what he was saying, not fashion "the perfect answer."
The exercise, of course, is a confidence builder, and I've used it many times solely for that purpose. But it was nice to know that it works well as a tool for strengthening eye contact, too.
Recently, I coached a client who had a severe case of eye-avoidedness. It was the first issue he brought up. And of course, I saw it in action immediately. Even though we sat in armchairs no more than 4 feet apart, I'd estimate that he avoided looking at me about 80% of the time.
He knew this was a problem both in presentations and interpersonal communication, but he had no idea how to overcome his shyness. And that, in fact, turned out to be an important clue for me. He mentioned that he was an introvert. One speaking trait introverts sometimes have, is a desire to "go away" in their own mind and fashion a carefully structured and gift-wrapped statement or response. In the rough-and-tumble of conversations and Q & A, however, we seldom have the luxury of doing this.
Before we tried an exercise I had in mind, I gave him the two reasons why I believe strong eye contact is critical to successful speaking situations:
1. You will never exert influence on people you don't look in the eye! When was the last time you were persuaded by someone who wouldn't look at you while he or she was talking?
2. People are easier to get a response from than the back wall. I often hear from my trainees, "But if I look anyone right in the eye, I'll forget what I'm saying!" At this point I usually respond: "Which do you think is going to give you something back, the ceiling or the person you're talking to?"
Our listeners should give us energy--not suck it out of us like an audience of vampires! Speaking to "the window of the soul" as you say something important to people, and observing their response, should be a delightful activity, not a painful one. People want you to look at them when you talk; and if you do, they'll trust you more.
As it turned out, the exercise we practiced next turned out to be even more helpful for this client than I anticipated. Here it is:
I had prepared around 20 impromptu speech topics, which I folded and placed in an envelope. My client had to reach in, choose a slip and read it, then look up at me and start talking about it. Understand: I gave him no time to prepare. (No nicely wrapped speech package possible here!)
The topics were intentionally ones that he would have no expertise in, and in fact, each topic had no right or wrong answer. They included, for instance, "What do you like about the United Nations, and why?" "What do you think was the most interesting ancient civilization?" and so on.
For a minute or two each time, my client spoke on each of the four items he'd selected. And I'd say that 90% of his responses were delivered looking directly at me, with rock-solid eye contact!
You see, he couldn't "go away" and marshall his thoughts and relevant data on the subject, for there wasn't any from his professional experience. The exercise was simple and clear: it was teaching him to look at his listeners even if he wasn't sure what he was about to say. He had to attempt to reach his listener with what he was saying, not fashion "the perfect answer."
The exercise, of course, is a confidence builder, and I've used it many times solely for that purpose. But it was nice to know that it works well as a tool for strengthening eye contact, too.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Are You Running Wild as a Speaker? . . . You Should Be!
Reading today's political postings (it is October, after all, in a presidential election year), I came across an article that's a real gem for speakers. It's by Mark Joseph, and it's titled, "A Bible Lesson for Sarah Palin: King David and the Coat of Mail."
Most of the article discusses how, in the author's opinion, vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is being over-handled. Tonight the sole televised debate of the VP candidates will occur, so the piece is certainly timely.
The conceit or developed idea of the piece is a comparison of Ms. Palin with King David in the Bible. We are reminded of David's youth and inexperience as a warrior at the time he volunteered to fight the Philistine giant Goliath. A worried King Saul loads the future king with the heavy protective gear favored by the Israelites for battle. Like the armor worn by medieval knights centuries later, however, the "coat of mail" is too heavy and cumbersome to allow effective movement.
David therefore rejects the gear, and places his faith in a few stones gathered by the river. No Star Wars technology for this future leader! The low-tech stones, when fitted to a well-handled slingshot, provide all the throw-weight the Israeli side needs. For the 8-ft. Goliath, the result is indeed a weapon of mass destruction.
The hero of this story knew who he was. Equally important, he understood what he had to bring to this high-stakes situation, and what he could not bring. A product of the natural environment around him, he knew what his skills were, and he recognized the tools that would allow him to bring those skills to this challenge.
As the article reminds us, he understood where his success came from. As speakers, we would all do well to learn this lesson. Too often, we try to become something we're not as a speaker, or to mimic someone we're not--to try to "be better than we are." David could have labored to instantly become a better conventional warrior--and he'd have been doomed to failure.
What we bring to our speeches and presentations is something only we can bring. We need to trust, therefore, that we have what it takes to succeed in this speaking situation. If we don't have it, all the fervent wishes to be "better" than ourselves won't help us!
As advocates of ourselves, our ideas, and our vision, we need to run wild and free.
Most of the article discusses how, in the author's opinion, vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is being over-handled. Tonight the sole televised debate of the VP candidates will occur, so the piece is certainly timely.
The conceit or developed idea of the piece is a comparison of Ms. Palin with King David in the Bible. We are reminded of David's youth and inexperience as a warrior at the time he volunteered to fight the Philistine giant Goliath. A worried King Saul loads the future king with the heavy protective gear favored by the Israelites for battle. Like the armor worn by medieval knights centuries later, however, the "coat of mail" is too heavy and cumbersome to allow effective movement.
David therefore rejects the gear, and places his faith in a few stones gathered by the river. No Star Wars technology for this future leader! The low-tech stones, when fitted to a well-handled slingshot, provide all the throw-weight the Israeli side needs. For the 8-ft. Goliath, the result is indeed a weapon of mass destruction.
The hero of this story knew who he was. Equally important, he understood what he had to bring to this high-stakes situation, and what he could not bring. A product of the natural environment around him, he knew what his skills were, and he recognized the tools that would allow him to bring those skills to this challenge.
As the article reminds us, he understood where his success came from. As speakers, we would all do well to learn this lesson. Too often, we try to become something we're not as a speaker, or to mimic someone we're not--to try to "be better than we are." David could have labored to instantly become a better conventional warrior--and he'd have been doomed to failure.
What we bring to our speeches and presentations is something only we can bring. We need to trust, therefore, that we have what it takes to succeed in this speaking situation. If we don't have it, all the fervent wishes to be "better" than ourselves won't help us!
As advocates of ourselves, our ideas, and our vision, we need to run wild and free.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Who's the King of Spin?
Would you trust a candidate for president who's a master at spinning the truth?
Perhaps you prefer a presidential candidate who has the potential to depress you every time he opens his mouth.
These are among the conclusions being reported in the current issue of the magazine New Scientist. They are part of a story entitled "Software Spots the Spin in Political Speeches," which became available today online.
According to the article, a mathematics and computer science researcher in Canada has developed an algorithm that spots what Mark Twain called "stretchers" in conversation or speeches. Word selection, frequency of usage, and use of action verbs supposedly reveal when a speech is high on spin. The researcher analyzed speeches by John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Guess who wins the King of Spin Award?
Obama. And by a huge margin.
The Democratic candidate's spin total was 6.7 on a scale where 0 equals an average level of spin. Hillary Clinton scored a 0.15. At the bottom of the spin scale was John McCain, whose score was an ultra-straight talking - 7.58.
All of this is about as believable as a claim that pigs actually wear lipstick.
Politicians wouldn't be politicians if they didn't spin facts and their positions on issues. It's the nature of the game, and garnering votes always mean walking a high wire while balancing truth and credibility. A simplistic survey of syntax may say something about a candidate and speechwriter's style. But only in the most unsophisticated campaign would it be a reliable indicator of truth or falsehood.
The same article goes on to dissect John McCain by way of a psychological profile and "auditory analysis software" used by a psychologist in Switzerland. This researcher finds that McCain looks and sounds like a person who is clinically depressed. Apparently, lack of pitch inflection and inappropriate smiling are the giveaways with this candidate.
Yet lack of pitch variety is the number one issue I work on with clients for whom vocal improvement is necessary. Unless a person has a background as an actor, there is virtually no opportunity for that person to have had training in using the vocal instrument well. And it is perfectly possible--even common--for that professional to make great strides in improved pitch inflection in a very short period of time with proper exposure to good vocal techniques.
As to whether smiling is a sure-fire indicator of poor mental health, well, that thought makes me too depressed to even write about it.
Perhaps you prefer a presidential candidate who has the potential to depress you every time he opens his mouth.
These are among the conclusions being reported in the current issue of the magazine New Scientist. They are part of a story entitled "Software Spots the Spin in Political Speeches," which became available today online.
According to the article, a mathematics and computer science researcher in Canada has developed an algorithm that spots what Mark Twain called "stretchers" in conversation or speeches. Word selection, frequency of usage, and use of action verbs supposedly reveal when a speech is high on spin. The researcher analyzed speeches by John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Guess who wins the King of Spin Award?
Obama. And by a huge margin.
The Democratic candidate's spin total was 6.7 on a scale where 0 equals an average level of spin. Hillary Clinton scored a 0.15. At the bottom of the spin scale was John McCain, whose score was an ultra-straight talking - 7.58.
All of this is about as believable as a claim that pigs actually wear lipstick.
Politicians wouldn't be politicians if they didn't spin facts and their positions on issues. It's the nature of the game, and garnering votes always mean walking a high wire while balancing truth and credibility. A simplistic survey of syntax may say something about a candidate and speechwriter's style. But only in the most unsophisticated campaign would it be a reliable indicator of truth or falsehood.
The same article goes on to dissect John McCain by way of a psychological profile and "auditory analysis software" used by a psychologist in Switzerland. This researcher finds that McCain looks and sounds like a person who is clinically depressed. Apparently, lack of pitch inflection and inappropriate smiling are the giveaways with this candidate.
Yet lack of pitch variety is the number one issue I work on with clients for whom vocal improvement is necessary. Unless a person has a background as an actor, there is virtually no opportunity for that person to have had training in using the vocal instrument well. And it is perfectly possible--even common--for that professional to make great strides in improved pitch inflection in a very short period of time with proper exposure to good vocal techniques.
As to whether smiling is a sure-fire indicator of poor mental health, well, that thought makes me too depressed to even write about it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
As Usual, Yogi Berra Said It Best!
"You can't think and hit at the same time," the great philosopher Yogi Berra once advised.
Actually, the Yogi-ism was better than that. He said: "Think? How the hell are you gonna think and hit at the same time?"
That's terrific advice for public speaking as well. Our practice time is valuable, but the techniques we work on can't be the focus of our actual presentation. By then, we either have them under our belt or we don't.
When we speak, our focus must be on three things: 1) the needs of our listeners, 2) our essential message, and 3) whether the audience is engaged and receiving that message loud and clear. Too much analysis, on any issues outside that laser-like focus, will only weaken the dynamism of our presentation.
I've been mulling over questions like this lately, as I've been reading Gerd Gigerenzer's book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. The author, a psychologist, points out that expert motor skills (like golf swings) are carried out unconsciously. Thinking too much about how the skills are applied actually inhibits performance.
We forget, after all, that as speakers, we are embodied. We're not talking heads--we use our bodies, and move in our bodies, as we speak. Vocal production itself is, of course, a physical act. And even a "talking head" is part of a body!
So, trust yourself when you speak. Believe that the strengths you've tried to build in your preparation and practice will "be there" when you give your speech or presentation. The present moment is rich with both challenges and opportunities for speakers. Live within them, and the experience will be enriched for both you and your audience.
Remember: The future ain't what it used to be.* It's the present that counts.
* Yeah . . . he said that, too.
Actually, the Yogi-ism was better than that. He said: "Think? How the hell are you gonna think and hit at the same time?"
That's terrific advice for public speaking as well. Our practice time is valuable, but the techniques we work on can't be the focus of our actual presentation. By then, we either have them under our belt or we don't.
When we speak, our focus must be on three things: 1) the needs of our listeners, 2) our essential message, and 3) whether the audience is engaged and receiving that message loud and clear. Too much analysis, on any issues outside that laser-like focus, will only weaken the dynamism of our presentation.
I've been mulling over questions like this lately, as I've been reading Gerd Gigerenzer's book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. The author, a psychologist, points out that expert motor skills (like golf swings) are carried out unconsciously. Thinking too much about how the skills are applied actually inhibits performance.
We forget, after all, that as speakers, we are embodied. We're not talking heads--we use our bodies, and move in our bodies, as we speak. Vocal production itself is, of course, a physical act. And even a "talking head" is part of a body!
So, trust yourself when you speak. Believe that the strengths you've tried to build in your preparation and practice will "be there" when you give your speech or presentation. The present moment is rich with both challenges and opportunities for speakers. Live within them, and the experience will be enriched for both you and your audience.
Remember: The future ain't what it used to be.* It's the present that counts.
* Yeah . . . he said that, too.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Who's Speaking in This Election, Anyway?
Have you been following John McCain and Barack Obama's speeches lately? Of course you have!
As the seemingly endless 2008 presidential campaign hurtles toward its conclusion, we are rightly focused on the effectiveness of the candidates' campaign appearances. And though it may be a tough assignment, let's try to get beyond partisan viewpoints and take a look at the contrasting style of each man. At least, let's get a snapshot.
(Full disclosure: One of the hats I wear is as a speech coach to political candidates. I've coached Democrats and Republicans at the state and national levels--in fact, just about in equal measure for each side. Fortunately, both major parties realize that good communication skills are not party-specific, and they don't exclude speech coaches on that basis!)
What's the buzz on Obama vs. McCain regarding their speaking styles?
Mr. Teleprompter vs. The Old Fart? Razzle-Dazzle vs. Tried-and-True? Rock-Star-in-a-Stadium vs. Straight-Flying-and-Talking-Pilot? And for goodness sake, which of these candidates sounds like he really represents change?
Perhaps the most interesting moments we've seen so far in the campaign have to do with UNSCRIPTED remarks by the candidates. (Speaking of which, we might be in for some fireworks when the untested Sarah Palin meets Joe Biden, whose public remarks must often puzzle even himself!) The campaigns are quite expert at displaying the candidates they've carefully groomed behind the scenes. But when "57 states" meets a politician who can't remember how many houses he owns, well, things get a lot more fun for all of us!
I for one am looking forward to the debates, when Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama must untie their lifelines tethering them to their campaigns, and wade out into unchartered waters. We may truly see, at last, how the charismatic Obama handles himself without a teleprompter--not just in incidental appearances, but in the pressure cooker--and whether McCain can marry experience, eloquence, and emotional control. . . . Hey, wait a minute: isn't that last one bigamy?
Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
