Machine Translated by Google

PETER MORLING'S BLOG

The blog deals with how my thesis supervisor Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen, University of Southern Denmark,
has plagiarized my Master's thesis and how the Ministry of Education and Research under the Danish government
sweeps the matter under the carpet

When the professor plagiarizes the students

When the professor

plagiarizes the students

Welcome to my blog which deals with how my thesis supervisor professor

Jørgen Bang-Jensen, University of Southern Denmark has plagiarized my master's
thesis and how the Ministry of Education and Research under the Danish government
sweeps the matter under the carpet.

The latter is problematic for all students in Denmark. Because if I can be swept under
the rug, so can you or someone close to you. It is a problem when those chosen to protect
you and me protect other interests. It should be unsatisfactory for all citizens in Denmark
and personally it is unsatisfactory because I, in addition to the violation

deprived of opportunities. In addition, the case is interesting because for years

the Danish universities have pointed the finger at the students and for whom it can have
fatal consequences if they plagiarize the professor.

Who has the right to the

inventions when students
participate in a joint research project?
According to the website of the Ministry of Education and Research

https://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/samspil-mellem-viden-og innovation/
viden-netvaerk-og-kommercialisering-til-versomkehter/fa-hjaelp
Machine Translated by Google

for-commercialization/model agreements/faq/who-has-the-rights-to-the-inventions-
when students-participate-in-a-joint-research-project

, it says there

"For ordinary students, it also applies that they are not subject to any
employment relationship. This means that such students personally have all
rights to own results. If students are involved in research projects, it is
therefore necessary for the private company and the student participating in
the project to enter into a separate agreement with those concerned regarding
the right to any inventions.”

But can you trust the words of the Ministry of Education and Research - that the
students personally have all the rights to their own results? Or are there other
considerations that weigh more when it comes down to it?

The scientific article

Nine months into my Master's thesis, I discover a transformation from the problem
that I am studying - 2-Edge-Connectivity Augmentation Problem (2-EC), to a better
known problem - Set Covering Problem (SCP). In the article "Edge-connectivity
augmentation and network matrices", M. Conforti, A.
Galluccio, and G. Proietti evidence for the transformation, but without proving it.
I am the first to develop and implement the transformation. This is the primary
result of the master's thesis.

I then develop two hybrid heuristics based on the transformation, both of which
outperform previous state-of-the-art heuristics in the literature,
for 2-EC. One also performs well against state-of-the-art heuristics for SCP. So
well that it performs better than the 4th best algorithm in the literature.
It performs slower than the 3rd best algorithm in the literature, but finds better
results on a single test instance and equally good on all others, which in itself is a
good result. It is the secondary result of the master's thesis.

The results are the reason that Bang-Jensen invites his new postdoc Marco
Chiarandini to the supervision meetings and that we do a minimal collaboration
with a view to a scientific article, product no. 1. The collaboration consists of

Bang-Jensen and I collaborate, at the guidance meetings, on a single

algorithm – Shortest Path Heuristic. Where I do the majority of the work,
including designing the algorithm, because it is I who studies the specific
problem and, as a result, has the necessary knowledge
Machine Translated by Google

Handing over the results of the master's thesis, including source text,
algorithms and source code, which Bang-Jensen presents at the AIRO2006
conference, Cesena (Italy), 12-15 September 2006. Also, training Chiarandini
in using source code so that he can carry out the experimental experiments
Bang -Jensen and Chiarandini finish writing the article because I am finishing
my education at the University of Southern Denmark

On 4 January 2007, I will defend my master's thesis. It's a happy ending.

I am proud of the collaboration and my results. I note in this connection
that after this date no algorithms have been added to product no. 1 or
products derived from this, which do not originate in the master's thesis.

Gross plagiarism
The reviewer claims that there is plagiarism in the products

Jørgen Bang-Jensen, Marco Chiarandini and Peter Morling, A computational

Investigation of Heuristic Algorithms for 2-Edge-Connectivity Augmentation,
Networks 2010, Volume 55, No. 4, Pages 299-325, Product No. 1

Jørgen Bang-Jensen, Marco Chiarandini, Yuri Goegebeur and Bent Jørgensen,

Mixed Models for the Analysis of Local Search Components, in Thomas Stützle,
Mauro Birattari and Holger H. Hoos (eds.), Proceedings of the first International
Workshop on Engineering Stochastic Local Search Algorithms, 2007, Volume
4638 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Pages 91-105, Product No. 2

Marco Chiarandini, Yuri Goegebeur, Mixed Models for the Analysis of

Optimization Algorithms, in Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Marco Chiarandini,
Luis Paquete, and Mike Preuss (eds.), Experimental Methods for the Analysis
of Optimization Algorithms, 2010, pages 225-264, Product No. 3

in that there has been appropriation of results and processes without rightful crediting
of

Peter Morling, Heuristics for Increasing the Edge-Connectivity of a Given

Weighted Network, Master's thesis, November 2006, the source.

In 2018, I find product no. 3 by searching the internet and learn that
the majority of the work is done by me, in my master's thesis, including
heuristics for optimization, algorithms for local search, a software platform to perform
the articles' experiments on and a study of the 2-edge-connectivity problem, without
me being credited for it. As I investigate the matter
Machine Translated by Google

more precisely, it occurs to me that my thesis supervisor Professor Jørgen Bang

Jensen, University of Southern Denmark and associate professor Marco Chiarandini,
University of Southern Denmark have plagiarized my Master's thesis. That is that they have
fabricated the papers to make it look like they made the discoveries and designed the
master's thesis algorithms, even though they didn't design a single one.

Below they have failed to reference the origin of the algorithms, in the source, they have
failed to offer me authorship in product #2 and #3, they have failed to name me, they have
taken my references and used them as they were theirs and they have stated that everything
is in perfect order. They have even stated that it is a practice carried out at the Department
of Mathematics and Computer Science (IMADA) – University of Southern Denmark, where
they are employed. It is gross plagiarism because it is the acquisition of knowledge under
deception and because it deprives me of career opportunities and recognition. It is theft by
the student.

In October 2019, I complained to the Practice Committee, University of Southern Denmark,

which in January 2020 forwarded the case to the Board for Scientific Misconduct, Education
and the Ministry of Research and which accepts the case for processing. That is that there
are justified suspicions of misconduct at both bodies.

-Complaint to the Practice

Committee: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YEFwN6aVPqciKvzoEcmgwk53fqts93di?
usp=sharing

- The committee's
obligations: https://www.sdu.dk/da/om_sdu/organisationen/rektoratet/rektorsekretariatet/praksisudvalget
+committee+on+practice

- The board's obligations:

https://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/rad-og-udvalg/Naevnet-for
Scientific Misconduct

A lever in Southern Danish

University
In the middle of the case, a website suddenly appears (the website is immediately
deleted, as I am seeking document access to it) at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU),
which tells:
Machine Translated by Google

"Together with Peter Morling, Marco Chiarandini and Jørgen Bang-Jensen have developed

algorithms for this problem with good results."

That is when you search for my name on the internet, the above piece of text appears as one of

the first hits on major search engines such as Google, Bing, Yandex, Swisscows etc., because SDU

has an important website. It is

very convenient in connection with the above complaint, because the message brings Bang-Jensen and

Chiarandini closer to the good results and at the same time it supports their consultation response in the

complaint.

But I cannot recognize the website's statement because I have only collaborated with Bang-Jensen on

a single algorithm – Shortest Path Heuristic and I have never collaborated with Chiarandini on developing

algorithms. I am subsequently seeking access to documents, at SDU, in order to be informed precisely:

Which algorithms are involved?

When did the collaboration take place?

I never get answers to the questions and one can wonder that the Rector's Secretariat/

SDU Law, which deals with access to documents, does not demand a more precise answer from their

employees. Because according to the university's website, they take plagiarism very seriously. But

that doesn't seem to be the case here.

-Print of website: https://

drive.google.com/file/d/10ENHKsaKLBWbqre8YlaYaR_jdVH250JZ/view? usp=sharing

- File inspection in website: https://

drive.google.com/file/d/1e8KMFX5RIWdv0HonFiDDtQkaX7j1IRqC/view? usp=sharing

Shocking decision from the Board of

Scientific Misconduct
-The board's decision:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HxdHgIyJ04OVcmJZdRG3n2T2I8ChUJNF? usp=sharing

On 16 March 2021, I will receive the decision in case no. 2020-01 from the Board for Scientific

Misconduct (NVU) and the decision comes as a shock. I am

have not been consulted and I am not being forwarded the hearing responses of the notified

parties. In part, failure to hear the parties can lead to an incorrect decision being made, because
Machine Translated by Google

the basis for the decision is incorrect or insufficient, and partly it is contrary to NVU's
own rules of procedure § 4, subsection 1, which says:

"§ 4. If the board takes up a case for consideration, it is the responsibility of the
board to obtain and examine all information that is necessary for the board to make
a decision."

There are several of the decision's assessments that do not make sense. There are several of them

the decision's assessments, where no justification or documentation is provided.

Here are a few examples from the board's overall assessment, pages 6-7 i
the decision. For a more detailed review of the board's overall assessment, see the section
"NVU will not answer questions".

Example 1

Top of page 6 of the decision:

“Regarding Product No. 1

Based on the information in the case, the board assumes that the reviewer is a co-
author of product no. 1, that the reviewer has approved the product before
publication and that the source is referred to in the product."

But why is it relevant to emphasize the reviewer's co-authorship when the reviewer is an
ordinary student with no knowledge and previous research experience?

Example 2

Line 6, page 6 of the decision:

"The board notes that, in principle, there cannot be one

appropriation of other people's ideas etc. without proper crediting, if all the
authors of the publication that is alleged to have been plagiarized from are co-
authors of the publication that is claimed to contain plagiarism, see the board's
decision in case 2017-09."

Case 2017-09 concerns a dispute between two university professors. But why is it relevant
to weigh in on a case involving two university professors when the reviewer is an ordinary
student with no knowledge and previous research experience?

Example 3

In the middle of page 6 of the decision:

“Regarding Product No. 2 and No. 3

After an overall assessment of the information in the case, the board assumes that
Machine Translated by Google

the core idea for the algorithms, which are used for data generation in product no. 2 and

3, was essentially devised by the notified parties.”

But those notified have not devised a single algorithm. I was given the task,

to study the concrete problem and develop the algorithms, which appear for the first time in the
master's thesis. Nor does it make sense that the algorithms are
devised by those notified. Because if the reported already had knowledge, then there was

not a basis for doing the master's thesis or for involving me in product no.
1.

Example 4

Above the middle of page 6 of the decision:

"The board has also emphasized that, according to the correspondence, the reviewer

was not able to regenerate his calculations himself half a year after the defense of the
thesis in connection with the "review" of product no. 1."

But there are no students who have obligations towards

the educational institution when the education has been completed.

Example 5

Bottom of page 6 of the decision:

"The committee assumes that it is in accordance with practice within the specific subject

area that no reference is made to the source, as a journal article based on a thesis is
used as a reference rather than the thesis, due to the quality control which publication

in a journal entails.”

You can refer to a napkin, a pot shard or something else that contributes to relevant concrete

knowledge. In addition, the author guide to the journal for product no. 1 describes: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/10970037/homepage/forauthors.html

how to refer to a thesis, journal or website, and there is no mention of any separate quality control

for theses. It is pure fabrication.

It seems that the board has "fabricated" the decision. I think the motive is to clean up those

reported and sweep the case under the carpet. It's appalling. Partly
because it violates the rule of law and partly because it is a threat to everyone

student rights. It is a threat to democracy. I'm shocked.

But more surprises will soon appear.

Machine Translated by Google

The notified's consultation response

- The notified party's consultation

response: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zG3-

HtOipAQMFaSPgmQFYCgdtvUVTDf6?usp=sharing

Why doesn't the Board for Scientific Misconduct (NVU) send me the hearing responses of the

reported persons? Am I supposed to not see it?

I am seeking document access to the consultation response on the same day that I receive the

decision on 16 March 2021 and can subsequently conclude that the decision is closely related to

the notified person's consultation response. I conclude that the amount of information that has no

relevance to the points of the complaint is colossal. There is information that is irrelevant to the case

because it takes place after the educational obligation has stopped. There is information that is

irrelevant to the case because it does not relate to the case. It's hard to see the forest for the trees.

I look at three things in the consultation response that are relevant to the case

1. Who designed the algorithms?

2. Has the student approved that Bang-Jensen and colleagues may decorate

with the student's results?

3. Yuri Goegebeur's role

Adv. 1. Who designed the algorithms?

This is the core issue of the case and which is mentioned in several places in the response to the consultation.

For example. it says on page 9

"It was Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini who designed most of the algorithms (with the

exception of LMS)."

But I do not recognize the claim because

I was given the task of studying the specific problem and I have designed and developed

all the algorithms that appear for the first time in the master's thesis

The magnitude of the master's thesis held up against the fact that Bang-Jensen and

Chirandini have other full-time commitments makes it unrealistic that they have studied and

designed most of the algorithms

Chirandini is only invited to the tutoring classes after I have found good results, nine months

into the master's thesis (otherwise I would probably never have seen the shadow of him) and

at the time, he is
Machine Translated by Google

partly not within the specific problem and partly most algorithms have already

been developed

The prerequisite for being able to design the algorithms is to study the specific problem

and the technologies used. But if Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini already had this knowledge. So
I should have studied a whole third issue, from the point of view of seeking "new knowledge"?

Is it likely that there is a professor who designs most of the algorithms for the people he/she

supervises? Is it common sense for the progress of a

University?

Email correspondence

The consultation response is based on 37 selected emails out of an email correspondence of

approximately 1000 emails. On page 3 of the response to the consultation, it says:

"We reviewed about 1000 emails written among the parties involved
since 2005. 1 We wish to remark that it was our impression that the collabo

ration and the communication among Chiarandini, Bang-Jensen and Morling has not

been problematic and on the contrary rather pleasant and polite.”

With the footnote:

"1 We can make the full mailbox of this correspondence available as a 33 MB

encrypted zip file upon request.”

Why is the email correspondence not made available? It is

documentation that can be used to show who designed the algorithms and what collaborations

there have been. Why does NVU not obtain the full e

mail correspondence?

Doubtful document access at SDU

I am looking for document access in the 1000 emails at SDU, and get 473 returns in a very

complicated document access. It takes SDU approx. 2 months to deliver the 473 emails,
which take place over three different deliveries and for each delivery they state that they have

fulfilled the document inspection. This is despite the fact that the response to the consultation
states that the 1000 emails are ready for delivery in a zip archive of 33 MB.

The document inspection gives rise to a number of questions

1. The hearing response states that there is a zip archive of 33 MB, which is
available. But SDU never returns the zip archive. Why does SDU not return the zip

archive?
Machine Translated by Google

2. The consultation response states that there are 1000 emails. But SDU return three

different deliveries, which together give 473 emails. Why does SDU not return the 1000 emails?

3. For each of the three deliveries, SDU declares that they have fulfilled the document inspection.

But since none of the deliverables correspond to the content of the consultation response

and since the deliverables are different. Could it be true that SDU has fulfilled the document

inspection?

4. The Rector's Secretariat/SDU Law informs me in a letter that they entrust the retrieval of

emails to Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini, even though they are aware of the complaint at

NVU. That is that there is plenty of time to correct and delete the original email

correspondence. Does the Rector's Secretariat/SDU Law exercise due care here?

Wouldn't it have been more correct to bypass those reported and make an extract from

university mail server?

But even though the email correspondence has been corrected and deleted. Then it cannot hide

what collaborations there have been on algorithms.

-Emails provided by SDU:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SpLf_Oy2RySqQ9pmdmvzgbGbChKAwD5y? usp=sharing

Out of the 473 e-mails in the document inspection, I have extracted 83 e-mails that Bang-Jensen sent

me in the period from 21 May 2005 to 1 November 2006, when the master's thesis was submitted.

Similarly, I have extracted 28 emails that Chiarandini sent to me in the period from 21 May 2005 to 1

November 2006, when the master's thesis was submitted.

- Email sent from Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini: https://

drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Rrbo_ld_DgudHNWnvgoAfQVh7BMMEoWX? usp=sharing

Date Topic

Aug 03 2005 13:22:51 "shortest paths" (shortest path)

September 6, 2005 1st version of SP heuristic implemented

15:53:11

November 24, 2005 Shortest Path Neighborhood

15:44:53
Machine Translated by Google

December 9, 2005 SP neighborhood

09:24:35

December 11, 2005 SP neighborhood

13:19:33

December 13, 2005 2nd version of the SP construction heuristic

13:13:04

December 14, 2005 SP construction heuristic

09:43:30

December 15, 2005 SP construction heuristic

12:15:50

December 19, 2005 SP construction heuristic

08:45:56

Feb 06 2006 14:18:43 shortest path neighborhood=20

08 Feb 2006 09:35:31 shortest path neighborhood=20, sp-1-opt, sp-2-opt

09 Feb 2006 09:56:39 shortest path neighborhood=20, sp-1-opt,

sp-2-opt

September 8, 2006 Shortest path neighborhood

13:26:06

Table 1. Email with collaboration on algorithms with Bang-Jensen

Date Topic

* *

Table 2. Email with collaboration on algorithms with Chiarandini

Table 1 shows emails sent by Bang-Jensen, which deal with design proposals or
collaboration on algorithms. Bang-Jensen and Morling collaborate on an algorithm – The

Shortest Path Heuristic, which is described for the first time in

Master's thesis sections 4.2.2 and 5.2.1.

Table 2 is empty because there are neither design proposals from Chiarandini nor

collaboration on algorithms between Chiarandini and Morling.

Machine Translated by Google

The observations give rise to a number of questions

1. Questions for SDU's website If the

claim that Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini have made several algorithms
together with the reviewer, as described under the section "A lever at the University
of Southern Denmark", is true? Shouldn't that be evident from the e-mail
correspondence? When did the collaboration take place?
2. Questions for the consultation response

If the claim that Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini designed most of the algorithms,
as described on page 9 of the hearing response, is correct?
Shouldn't that be evident from the e-mail correspondence? And if not?
How have Bang-Jensen and Chiarandini conveyed knowledge to the reviewer?
When did they design the algorithms?
3. Questions about NVU's decision
If the claim that the algorithms were devised by the reviewers is true?
Shouldn't that be evident from the e-mail correspondence? And if not?
How have the notified parties communicated knowledge to the reviewer? When do they have

devised the algorithms?

Again, one can wonder that the Rector's Secretariat/SDU Law, which deals with access
to documents, does not ensure a more precise answer. You can be particularly surprised that
they entrust access to the documents to those notified. That is it's Bang-Jensen and
Chiarandini who hands out emails to the Rector's Secretariat/SDU Law. Didn't have it

been more correct, to bypass those reported?

Adv. 2. Has the student approved that Bang-Jensen and colleagues may decorate
with the student's results?

In NVU's decision, under the board's overall assessment at the top of page 6, it says that I
have approved product no. 1 before publication, without giving reasons or
documentation for the claim. In the notified person's consultation response, it is also stated
on pages 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 15 that I have approved product no. 1, with reference to the
approval taking place in the email below: https://drive.google. com/file/d/
1sA_oFHR6VpyqWcfcaZF1SfXUGaJj9VyN/view?
usp=sharing

But I can't recognize that. I do not remember a single approval during the thesis process,
nor can I recognize that the above email is an approval. For example. it says nothing about
approval or what it is that you approve. But rather that it is a check because I perform
several
checks, of the correctness of the article's algorithms, even long after the
educational obligation has stopped. It doesn't make sense to make one either
Machine Translated by Google

approval in the middle of the process, when the article is published in 2010. If a separate
agreement should have been made, then it should have been made before the project
start.

Adv. 3. Yuri Goegebeur's role

Yuri Goegebeur is co-author on product no. 3 and if he is not familiar with me and the
master's thesis. Then he has nothing to worry about, in relation to plagiarism and
appropriation of knowledge. It is also apparent from the response to the consultation,
page 4:

"January 2006, Goegebeur arrives at SDU. He is not involved in the supervision

of Morling. He will never meet him.”

But I can't recognize that. I remember that Goegebeur started at the Research
Unit for Statistics, University of Southern Denmark. Where I sat and wrote
thesis and where I had been a part-time programmer in previous years. In the period
from 2006 to 2007, we sit in the office approx. 10 meters apart as the crow flies and
eat lunch together more than 100 times. I wonder why,
that he cannot remember. But there are others who can.

Request for conversion

I am writing to the Board for Scientific Misconduct (NVU) or on March 25,
27 March, 19 April 2021 and 17 May 2021, when I request conversion of
the decision of 16 March. Below I inform you about the partial access to documents
SDU and about the content of the e-mail correspondence, which provides documentation for
the core issues of the case.

NVU responds to this on 28 May 2021:

"At Peter Morling's request, no new facts have emerged

information of such significant importance to the case,…”

-NVU's answer:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eCFZDy_o8oP1_KtMZVvRtvLJ-fW-Kxic/view?
usp=sharing

It's appalling because it's an outright lie. NVU will not deal with
access to documents at SDU, they will not deal with the documentation obtained, and they
have not obtained the documentation themselves. Anyone who contravenes their own rules
of procedure § 4, subsection 1.
Machine Translated by Google

NVU will not answer questions

The Board for Scientific Misconduct's (NVU) decision of 16 March 2021 ("the board's
overall assessment", pages 6-7) is based on a number of assessments,
for which no justification is given, including no arguments, no reference is made to
documentation and new conclusions are drawn on the basis of these
assessments. Also, that there are several questionable assessments in the decision. This
gives rise to a number of questions, which I have sent to the board, respectively. the 21st.
November 2021, 21 December 2021 and 20 January 2022.

-Questions for NVU:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kTkDVww6D6FwZxwACHVCKSgM8WwZzcGK/view?
usp=sharing

Every time NVU dodges the questions and sweeps them under the carpet,
even if it is in violation of section 24, subsection of the Public Administration Act. 1,2, which says:

"§ 24. A justification for a decision must contain a reference to the

legal rules according to which the decision was made. To the extent that the decision
according to these rules is based on an administrative estimate, the reasons must also state them
main considerations that have been decisive for the exercise of discretion.

PCS. 2. The justification must also, if necessary, contain a brief statement

of the information relating to the factual circumstances of the case, which is of
significant importance for the decision."

-NVU's answer:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kT71Z0-
qGCHkwSumA3kRgtEM6H6LSr8R?usp=sharing

Core question
Who made the algorithms?

I claim that I have designed all the algorithms in the source and that I have
collaborated with Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen on a single algorithm, which was also
designed by me, because I had the prerequisites for it, because it was
me who studied the concrete problem.

Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen claims that he has designed most algorithms,

without specifying which algorithms are involved.
Machine Translated by Google

Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen creates a website while the case is being processed at
NVU, where he tells the world that he and associate professor Marco Chiarandini have
developed algorithms together with me, with good results. The website will be deleted
immediately, as I am seeking access to the documents which algorithms are in question
and when they were developed? I never get answers to the questions.

I cannot recognize some of Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen's claims and the

conclusion must be that either the professor is lying or I am. It must be NVU's task to
investigate further and present a reasoned opinion
and well-founded outcome, but that is difficult in my opinion.

Arguments that I made the algorithms

I am given the task of studying the problem and creating the algorithms, which is
the size of a master's thesis
Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen has similar other obligations, which have the
magnitude of a full-time professorship, including 13 MSc
students, 3 PhDs, and 1 postdoc, research, teaching and several trips I am
studying the scientific basis to be able to get the ideas and prerequisites to
be able to design and develop the algorithms I am applying to the board of
studies, SDU for 6 months extra SU, with the argument, that I have found
good results and which are approved by the board of studies The algorithms
appear for the first time in the master's thesis

The email correspondence documents collaboration on a single algorithm

The e-mail correspondence documents that Professor Jørgen Bang

Jensen has not designed a single algorithm
The e-mail correspondence documents that Associate Professor Marco
Chiarandini did not design a single algorithm

I cannot find argumentation or documentation for Professor Jørgen Bang-Jensen

and Associate Professor Marco Chiarandini's claims. But I would like to hear how it
went? If it can't be done? Why is it so reasonable that they adorn themselves with
my feathers?

27 May 2022 peter morling

Machine Translated by Google

Proudly powered by WordPress