Sunday, June 12, 2005
Why did CS defect?
In my previous post I included computer scientists in my discussion of specialization and the postmodern engineer. Doing so reminded me that one of my pet peeves over many years has been that the field of computer science chose to call itself "computer science" and not use a term that included the term "engineering."
There is no proper argument that computer science is one. Science is largely descriptive: it works primarily on describing that that is. Engineering is primarily prescriptive: it says what should be built and how things should be done. Without the invention of an engineered object, the computer, so-called computer science would have nothing to describe, and computer science's past has been a glorious history of continual improvement, engineering, and invention of some of the most powerful technological artifacts known to man.
None of this says, of course, that science is not used in computer science toward its primary mission of creating better computer systems, and none of this says that computer scientists don't contribute to science through their descriptive efforts, but other disciplines of engineering also use and contribute to science in a similar ways. So why did computer science "defect" from the other engineering disciplines and choose to ally itself nominally with the sciences?
History and prestige give much of the answer. Computer science arose in the aftermath of World War II and the success of the glory projects, the atomic bomb and radar, were largely attributed to the science involved. A more careful reading of history (see this) suggests that the success of the glory project required a good bit of formal and informal engineeirng acumen. Moreover, a better understanding of the Allied victory, generally, would credit engineering as part of a larger production dynamo that produced materiel for the war effort more rapidly and in larger quantities than had ever before been seen. Such nuance is largely lost to the larger culture, however, and the postwar zeitgeist raised the prestige of science. That CS chose to call itself a science can be understood in that milieu even if the name is inaccurate.
Unfortunately, the harm caused by this choice is not restricted to sloppy speech. What a field chooses to call itself matters. For example, the training of CS graduates teaches them "theory" as some sort of pristine exercise in proper mathematics as opposed to teaching model building as something that is integral to proper engineering. As a result, CS majors tend to treat theory as something divorced from the engineering of systems in a manner not seen in disciplines that choose to call their practitioners "engineers." My campaign for little models is largely an effort to counteract the imbalance in the theory education of computer scientists.
Card carrying computer scientists have recognized these problems. For example, Peter Denning's famous article Educating a New Engineer (here, ACM access required) chose the term "engineer" in making a case for change in educating the CS major of the future, and he created what he called the Center for the New Engineer to promulgate that vision. The selection of the term "engineer" was not an accident, and part of the point was to correct the errors of a CS past in which science was overvalued above the primary prescriptive mission of the discipline.
CS is the most recent discipline of engineering to be created, but it probably won't be the last. Let us hope that the next one that comes along has the wisdom and courage to choose a more accurate name.
There is no proper argument that computer science is one. Science is largely descriptive: it works primarily on describing that that is. Engineering is primarily prescriptive: it says what should be built and how things should be done. Without the invention of an engineered object, the computer, so-called computer science would have nothing to describe, and computer science's past has been a glorious history of continual improvement, engineering, and invention of some of the most powerful technological artifacts known to man.
None of this says, of course, that science is not used in computer science toward its primary mission of creating better computer systems, and none of this says that computer scientists don't contribute to science through their descriptive efforts, but other disciplines of engineering also use and contribute to science in a similar ways. So why did computer science "defect" from the other engineering disciplines and choose to ally itself nominally with the sciences?
History and prestige give much of the answer. Computer science arose in the aftermath of World War II and the success of the glory projects, the atomic bomb and radar, were largely attributed to the science involved. A more careful reading of history (see this) suggests that the success of the glory project required a good bit of formal and informal engineeirng acumen. Moreover, a better understanding of the Allied victory, generally, would credit engineering as part of a larger production dynamo that produced materiel for the war effort more rapidly and in larger quantities than had ever before been seen. Such nuance is largely lost to the larger culture, however, and the postwar zeitgeist raised the prestige of science. That CS chose to call itself a science can be understood in that milieu even if the name is inaccurate.
Unfortunately, the harm caused by this choice is not restricted to sloppy speech. What a field chooses to call itself matters. For example, the training of CS graduates teaches them "theory" as some sort of pristine exercise in proper mathematics as opposed to teaching model building as something that is integral to proper engineering. As a result, CS majors tend to treat theory as something divorced from the engineering of systems in a manner not seen in disciplines that choose to call their practitioners "engineers." My campaign for little models is largely an effort to counteract the imbalance in the theory education of computer scientists.
Card carrying computer scientists have recognized these problems. For example, Peter Denning's famous article Educating a New Engineer (here, ACM access required) chose the term "engineer" in making a case for change in educating the CS major of the future, and he created what he called the Center for the New Engineer to promulgate that vision. The selection of the term "engineer" was not an accident, and part of the point was to correct the errors of a CS past in which science was overvalued above the primary prescriptive mission of the discipline.
CS is the most recent discipline of engineering to be created, but it probably won't be the last. Let us hope that the next one that comes along has the wisdom and courage to choose a more accurate name.
Comments:
<< Home
Computer Science is not engineering. Computer science people don't have to deal with engineering-type constraints.
# posted by 
: 8:21 AM
: 8:21 AM
Au contraire, my argument was exactly that CS is engineering, and saying that "computer science people don't have to deal with engineering-type constraints" does nothing to answer my fundamental argument. Does CS deal with prescription primarily, and does it traffic in description largely in support of prescription? Yes or no? If yes, then why does CS emphasize the S to the exclusion of the E. Indeed some departments call themselves CSE, but they are in the minority.
What do most practitioners of CS do? Do they engage in the pursuit of new knowledge, or do they help create new systems--do they engineer new systems--for profit or higher purpose? Academic CS types (like academic engineering types) may work on the creation onf new knowledge, but in practice working CS types, like working engineering types, design, implement, test, and operate systems of various sorts, and as such, both engineers and CSers face "engineering-type constraints."
What do most practitioners of CS do? Do they engage in the pursuit of new knowledge, or do they help create new systems--do they engineer new systems--for profit or higher purpose? Academic CS types (like academic engineering types) may work on the creation onf new knowledge, but in practice working CS types, like working engineering types, design, implement, test, and operate systems of various sorts, and as such, both engineers and CSers face "engineering-type constraints."
In regard to the statement that " Computer Science is not engineering" I would agree, but I definitely think that science and engineering are strongly "coupled".
I think the boundaries between engineering and science are naturally fuzzy. This, of course, is also valid between computer science and engineering: CS advances may trigger advances in computer engineering and viceversa; and Engineers may wind-up contributing to "science" while engineering things, as well as "scientist" may wind-up "producing" "engineering stuff" on their path to "describing the world".
Social "scientists" are aware of this phenomenum. Particularly, there is a very interesting discussion on these issues in the work of Peter Galison . I do recommend the book: Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps, in which Galison presents the role of Einstein's work in the "coordination of clocks at train stations" (clearly engineering stuff) and its profound relationship to the theory of relativity (clearly science stuff).
I think the boundaries between engineering and science are naturally fuzzy. This, of course, is also valid between computer science and engineering: CS advances may trigger advances in computer engineering and viceversa; and Engineers may wind-up contributing to "science" while engineering things, as well as "scientist" may wind-up "producing" "engineering stuff" on their path to "describing the world".
Social "scientists" are aware of this phenomenum. Particularly, there is a very interesting discussion on these issues in the work of Peter Galison . I do recommend the book: Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps, in which Galison presents the role of Einstein's work in the "coordination of clocks at train stations" (clearly engineering stuff) and its profound relationship to the theory of relativity (clearly science stuff).
You can agree with one another all you want, but that doesn't constitute a reasoned argument against the point of view my post espoused.
My critique is deeper than either comment maker has understood. Both comments take the term "computer science" and use it to define what computer scientists do.
Von Karman put the science/engineering difference nicely when he said, "Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was." I am arguing that the field of computer science and computer scientists generally are in the business of creating "the world that never was." The object of their study are artifacts as artificial (and engineered) as the world has ever seen.
You may choose to call your field "science" and yourself a "scientist," but that does not mean the description is apt or accurate. And it doesn't answer the question as to why CS chose S and not E.
My critique is deeper than either comment maker has understood. Both comments take the term "computer science" and use it to define what computer scientists do.
Von Karman put the science/engineering difference nicely when he said, "Scientists discover the world that exists; engineers create the world that never was." I am arguing that the field of computer science and computer scientists generally are in the business of creating "the world that never was." The object of their study are artifacts as artificial (and engineered) as the world has ever seen.
You may choose to call your field "science" and yourself a "scientist," but that does not mean the description is apt or accurate. And it doesn't answer the question as to why CS chose S and not E.
I tend to agree with Dr. Goldberg's perspective, but I think that there are further distinctions that are necessary. Since my predisposition is in the software side of these disciplines, I'm unlikely to formulate an informed opinion on the entire topic.
By day, I earn my living as a software engineer. I spend my time constructing software for my clients. I practice engineering disciplines to varying degrees in this process. I apply science in this process. But as an engineer, it is my job to ship software, period. I may think of myself as one who practices computer science, but I am in the practice of engineering. After hours, I perform research in mathematics and computer science. I may engineer software and simulations to support my hypotheses, but I'm practicing science.
I'm going to use the benefits of a GA to describe what I believe to observe.
The human genotype emits knowledge of computing. To varying degrees, a necessary multi-objective fitness function is needed to determine the effectiveness of these emissions. As part of the fitness function, the individual must declare their practice, i.e. science or engineering (let's not allow a continuous function for a moment). The function, based on this answer, will provide for the presentation of the appropriate fitness measure. If an individual declares "science" and performs poorly, the GA handles the consequences. If the individual answers "engineering" and performs poorly, ditto. If science is the discovery of that that is, then there will be fewer of these individuals as many will eventually fail this test. Those that declare engineering and perform well continue; those that don't become a marketing genotype or some other discipline. In the state of the human population, i.e. steady state, non-destructive replacement, with unrestricted population size, those that declare and emit correctly, continue.
I'd summarize as follows. I think that we are in the early stages of the phylogeny of computing. I'd argue that we are in the first decile of the generations of this evolution. If I consider the individuals and their ability to develop their "computing emissions", I'd argue that few actually participate in the act of scientific emissions. This makes Dr. Goldberg's point. However, because to a large extent the fitness function has not distinguished this distinction, a high score is improperly granted to many in the population. In computing today, the definition of the fitness function for computing emissions is not mature.
Dr. Goldberg missed a golden opportunity here, so I'll state the obvious: In the computing disciplines, the term "science" has hitchhiked long enough.
---O
By day, I earn my living as a software engineer. I spend my time constructing software for my clients. I practice engineering disciplines to varying degrees in this process. I apply science in this process. But as an engineer, it is my job to ship software, period. I may think of myself as one who practices computer science, but I am in the practice of engineering. After hours, I perform research in mathematics and computer science. I may engineer software and simulations to support my hypotheses, but I'm practicing science.
I'm going to use the benefits of a GA to describe what I believe to observe.
The human genotype emits knowledge of computing. To varying degrees, a necessary multi-objective fitness function is needed to determine the effectiveness of these emissions. As part of the fitness function, the individual must declare their practice, i.e. science or engineering (let's not allow a continuous function for a moment). The function, based on this answer, will provide for the presentation of the appropriate fitness measure. If an individual declares "science" and performs poorly, the GA handles the consequences. If the individual answers "engineering" and performs poorly, ditto. If science is the discovery of that that is, then there will be fewer of these individuals as many will eventually fail this test. Those that declare engineering and perform well continue; those that don't become a marketing genotype or some other discipline. In the state of the human population, i.e. steady state, non-destructive replacement, with unrestricted population size, those that declare and emit correctly, continue.
I'd summarize as follows. I think that we are in the early stages of the phylogeny of computing. I'd argue that we are in the first decile of the generations of this evolution. If I consider the individuals and their ability to develop their "computing emissions", I'd argue that few actually participate in the act of scientific emissions. This makes Dr. Goldberg's point. However, because to a large extent the fitness function has not distinguished this distinction, a high score is improperly granted to many in the population. In computing today, the definition of the fitness function for computing emissions is not mature.
Dr. Goldberg missed a golden opportunity here, so I'll state the obvious: In the computing disciplines, the term "science" has hitchhiked long enough.
---O
# posted by : 8:11 PM
: 8:11 PM
Well, I hope to add some enlightment to the question. I will not explain my ideas with a "long" text, but, what I will use is, just, two URL's. :D
This is Modern Computer Science and this is (a branch of) Computer Engineering.
I really disagree when Dr. Goldberg said that "Without the invention of an engineered object, the computer, so-called computer science would have nothing to describe". I think that the major subject of Computer Science is not the computer, the silicon machine, but, yes, the Computation. The questions from the Computation field can be as "What is and is not computable ?" or "What are the limits of a Computing machine ?". I say this, because there were other types of computers in the past (Gears From Greeks, Abacus, Pascaline and The Differencial Engine) and those computers were not built by Scientists (at that time they even did not have a Theory of Computation). The only Computer/Computation/Computing Scientist that I really think is a Scientist, was Alan Turing, but, at this point, you could say: "Hey, but Alan Turing was a Mathematician!!". There are some critics to decide if Mathematics is or is not a Science (Gauss called Math as "The Queen of all Sciences"). Well, I would consider, too, as a Computer/Computation/Computing Scientists other two guys: Donald Knuth and J. Gregory Chaitin. The more suitable word to use would be Computing/Computation Scientist, without the word "Computer" (because they, the Computation/Computing Scientists, do not study the computer, the machine, but, yes, what it does in practice: Computations). But, what are the reasons to use the word "Science/Scientist" ? Well, the major reason could be that a Computing/Computation/(Computer) Scientist studies the fundamental gear of computers: Computations. Computation can be studied without the use of a computer, a physical machine, but can be studied only using Theory of Computation. Now, I ask you a question: Why are the reasons to use the word "Computer" in "Computer Science", if the major part of CS courses do not pay too much attention to electronics and circuitry ?
The word "Computer" is/(could be) allowed to stay beside the term "Science", maybe, because of the way that the modern computing was created: it was not an isolated subject, but it took some concepts and ideas from other fields, for example, the Information Theory (Claude Shanon) and Mathematics (Turing, Gödel). But, the use of the first Computing Machines could enlight our minds to find an answer: The World War II was the first war to use a computing machine to help the Allied in some tasks (for example, to know if a nuclear bomb explosion could ignitate all the atmosphere). But, I have a better argument to the problem: The word "Computer" is used so far, because the most immediate product from the Modern Computation field was, at the beginning, the computers (ENIAC, UNIVAC, Colossus). It is the same situation when somebody says "I want a Big Mac" to say that he/she wants a hamburger. You substitute the product for the trademark and we do the same when we say "I'm or /He/She is a Computer Scientist!".
Até Mais!!
Marcelo (a.k.a Nosophorus)
This is Modern Computer Science and this is (a branch of) Computer Engineering.
I really disagree when Dr. Goldberg said that "Without the invention of an engineered object, the computer, so-called computer science would have nothing to describe". I think that the major subject of Computer Science is not the computer, the silicon machine, but, yes, the Computation. The questions from the Computation field can be as "What is and is not computable ?" or "What are the limits of a Computing machine ?". I say this, because there were other types of computers in the past (Gears From Greeks, Abacus, Pascaline and The Differencial Engine) and those computers were not built by Scientists (at that time they even did not have a Theory of Computation). The only Computer/Computation/Computing Scientist that I really think is a Scientist, was Alan Turing, but, at this point, you could say: "Hey, but Alan Turing was a Mathematician!!". There are some critics to decide if Mathematics is or is not a Science (Gauss called Math as "The Queen of all Sciences"). Well, I would consider, too, as a Computer/Computation/Computing Scientists other two guys: Donald Knuth and J. Gregory Chaitin. The more suitable word to use would be Computing/Computation Scientist, without the word "Computer" (because they, the Computation/Computing Scientists, do not study the computer, the machine, but, yes, what it does in practice: Computations). But, what are the reasons to use the word "Science/Scientist" ? Well, the major reason could be that a Computing/Computation/(Computer) Scientist studies the fundamental gear of computers: Computations. Computation can be studied without the use of a computer, a physical machine, but can be studied only using Theory of Computation. Now, I ask you a question: Why are the reasons to use the word "Computer" in "Computer Science", if the major part of CS courses do not pay too much attention to electronics and circuitry ?
The word "Computer" is/(could be) allowed to stay beside the term "Science", maybe, because of the way that the modern computing was created: it was not an isolated subject, but it took some concepts and ideas from other fields, for example, the Information Theory (Claude Shanon) and Mathematics (Turing, Gödel). But, the use of the first Computing Machines could enlight our minds to find an answer: The World War II was the first war to use a computing machine to help the Allied in some tasks (for example, to know if a nuclear bomb explosion could ignitate all the atmosphere). But, I have a better argument to the problem: The word "Computer" is used so far, because the most immediate product from the Modern Computation field was, at the beginning, the computers (ENIAC, UNIVAC, Colossus). It is the same situation when somebody says "I want a Big Mac" to say that he/she wants a hamburger. You substitute the product for the trademark and we do the same when we say "I'm or /He/She is a Computer Scientist!".
Até Mais!!
Marcelo (a.k.a Nosophorus)
Hey, you have a great blog here!
Just wanted to say hello world and send a blog.
Hope I did this right?
I have a drive qualified traffic to web site site. It pretty much covers ##WEBSITE TRAFFIC## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time.
Thanks again
Just wanted to say hello world and send a blog.
Hope I did this right?
I have a drive qualified traffic to web site site. It pretty much covers ##WEBSITE TRAFFIC## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time.
Thanks again
# posted by : 5:10 PM
: 5:10 PM
Interesting blog on accessory computer. I will bookmark this blog for future reference. I saw some related information here accessory computer
# posted by : 1:19 PM
: 1:19 PM
Great site about creative web development Keep up the good work! website design bathurst
# posted by : 10:26 AM
: 10:26 AM
I really enjoyed all the great information on your blog.
It really is about time I started my own. I will be linking
it from my website about make extra money Would love to know what you think.
It really is about time I started my own. I will be linking
it from my website about make extra money Would love to know what you think.
# posted by : 6:37 PM
: 6:37 PM
This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this ebook website site, it's pretty awesome too!
# posted by : 1:45 PM
: 1:45 PM
Hi what a great blog,kid make money. If you have time pay me a visit.kid make money
# posted by : 5:38 PM
: 5:38 PM
Enjoyed your blog.
Please visit
Advanced Business Marketing
And leave your comment.
Please visit
Advanced Business Marketing
And leave your comment.
# posted by : 6:24 PM
: 6:24 PM
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a Gift Credit Cards site. It pretty much covers Gift Credit Cards related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
I have a Gift Credit Cards site. It pretty much covers Gift Credit Cards related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
# posted by : 3:17 PM
: 3:17 PM
Hey you have a great blog here about work from home based business. I'm definately going to bookmark you.work from home based business. Come check it out when you have time.
# posted by : 9:56 PM
: 9:56 PM
I read your blog about frontpage hosting.
Thanks. My blog isn't ready yet, but I have
a site about frontpage hosting.
I love to give info. too so come on by.
Thanks. My blog isn't ready yet, but I have
a site about frontpage hosting.
I love to give info. too so come on by.
# posted by : 5:43 PM
: 5:43 PM
I have seen a lot about home based travel business.
See how a 33 yr old ex-bouncer replaced his income and learned even more about home based travel business
Seriously, It only took about nine months. There is a lot of hype out there about home based travel business so don't get overwhelmed.
It's real though. A sixty year old industry that does $100 Billion a year in sales. Isn't that worth ten minutes of your time?
Click Here Now
See how a 33 yr old ex-bouncer replaced his income and learned even more about home based travel business
Seriously, It only took about nine months. There is a lot of hype out there about home based travel business so don't get overwhelmed.
It's real though. A sixty year old industry that does $100 Billion a year in sales. Isn't that worth ten minutes of your time?
Click Here Now
# posted by : 1:58 AM
: 1:58 AM
Hi Blogger,
I always like an interesting blog. Why did CS defect? caught my attention even if I was looking for best autosurf blogs. Kind of gets my thoughts moving coming from a different angle about best autosurf. Hope to check back every now and then. Have a nice day :-)
I always like an interesting blog. Why did CS defect? caught my attention even if I was looking for best autosurf blogs. Kind of gets my thoughts moving coming from a different angle about best autosurf. Hope to check back every now and then. Have a nice day :-)
# posted by : 8:01 AM
: 8:01 AM
For the best in sheet music software visit online stores for DVD Software Players that offer quality audio playback on the PC.
# posted by : 4:41 PM
: 4:41 PM
Like this posting has some good information onaffiliate canadian pharmacy. Can't wait for the rest of the postings. I hope it contains more info on affiliate canadian pharmacy.
# posted by : 1:29 AM
: 1:29 AM
I really enjoyed reading your Blog about based business home turnkey. I also have a Blog/Website about based business home turnkey come check it out!! Have a great day!
# posted by : 2:12 AM
: 2:12 AM
Hi, interesting comments on clickbank clickbank clickbank internet linkbash.com marketing, can I ask have you actually thoughtof joining an Affiliate scheme and earning shed loads of commission ? No, then why not!! have a look at my site blog about clickbank clickbank clickbank internet linkbash.com marketing. either that or pop over to http://jayanddeb.reseller.hop.clickbank.net and register with Clickbank then go over to http://www.graburl.com/x.php?ur and start earning money tomorrow !!! Either that or go and vist my Dropship Website at http://dropship.postercash.co.uk/ and set yourself up as an affiliate so you can sell posters and DVDs on Ebay......Good luck and happy Blogging
Hi Blogger,
Looking for autosurf monitor blogs when I came across yours. Glad I did get a chance to read it. Why did CS defect? got me to thinking and came up with a new idea about autosurf monitor. Again I'm glad to have stiopped by. Have a great day :-)
Looking for autosurf monitor blogs when I came across yours. Glad I did get a chance to read it. Why did CS defect? got me to thinking and came up with a new idea about autosurf monitor. Again I'm glad to have stiopped by. Have a great day :-)
# posted by : 6:11 PM
: 6:11 PM
Interesting site you have oncaravan chalet sale uk. Can I interest your readers in my site oncaravan chalet sale uk
# posted by : 8:31 PM
: 8:31 PM
Hi,
I've got a site about how to beat slot machines with strategy. The site has some original articles related to slot strategies that your readers may find interesting - here's a sample article:
Video Poker - Six Tips to Win the Big Payouts
Video poker is a slot machine game combined with the rules of five-card draw poker in a very specific manner. Video poker is a better game to play rather than traditional ...
slot strategies
Thanks,
I've got a site about how to beat slot machines with strategy. The site has some original articles related to slot strategies that your readers may find interesting - here's a sample article:
Video Poker - Six Tips to Win the Big Payouts
Video poker is a slot machine game combined with the rules of five-card draw poker in a very specific manner. Video poker is a better game to play rather than traditional ...
slot strategies
Thanks,
# posted by : 7:11 AM
: 7:11 AM
Get your website seen use our internet advertising web site promotion tools to get the word out and take the work out of promotion. Resale rights available. Starting at only $6.99 get 1000's of links to your website http://www.BLGen.net
# posted by : 12:03 PM
: 12:03 PM
Hey do you like free stuff? freebies or samples?
I like this blog and i found nice australia freebies on it and its good i know of a good site for australia freebies
Its number one site on the web for australia freebies
Check it out at australia freebies
I like this blog and i found nice australia freebies on it and its good i know of a good site for australia freebies
Its number one site on the web for australia freebies
Check it out at australia freebies
# posted by : 8:27 PM
: 8:27 PM
Hi Blogger,
Looking for autosurf program blogs when I came across yours. Glad I did get a chance to read it. Why did CS defect? got me to thinking and came up with a new idea about autosurf program. Again I'm glad to have stiopped by. Have a great day :-)
Looking for autosurf program blogs when I came across yours. Glad I did get a chance to read it. Why did CS defect? got me to thinking and came up with a new idea about autosurf program. Again I'm glad to have stiopped by. Have a great day :-)
# posted by : 7:48 AM
: 7:48 AM
Hi all, to answer your question: Yes, there is info talking about mlm truth and it is worth reading. Great videos explaining everything about mlm truth and most important, the money you will make. See you soon. Robert
# posted by : 8:45 AM
: 8:45 AM
Hey do you like free stuff? freebies or samples?
I like this blog and i found nice freebies teen on it and its good i know of a good site for freebies teen
Its number one site on the web for freebies teen
Check it out at freebies teen
I like this blog and i found nice freebies teen on it and its good i know of a good site for freebies teen
Its number one site on the web for freebies teen
Check it out at freebies teen
# posted by : 1:05 AM
: 1:05 AM
Would The Thought Of Thousands Of Other Web Site's All Displaying Your Content,
# posted by : 6:33 AM
: 6:33 AM
Hi Blogger,
I always like an interesting blog. Why did CS defect? caught my attention even if I was looking for autosurf exchange traffic blogs. Kind of gets my thoughts moving coming from a different angle about autosurf exchange traffic. Hope to check back every now and then. Have a nice day :-)
I always like an interesting blog. Why did CS defect? caught my attention even if I was looking for autosurf exchange traffic blogs. Kind of gets my thoughts moving coming from a different angle about autosurf exchange traffic. Hope to check back every now and then. Have a nice day :-)
# posted by : 9:06 AM
: 9:06 AM
Hi Blogger,
Why did CS defect? was a good read. I've been searching for autosurf traffic blogs and came across yours. Even though it was not exact I am always open to new ideas about autosurf traffic in any way I can think of. Have a great day :-)
Why did CS defect? was a good read. I've been searching for autosurf traffic blogs and came across yours. Even though it was not exact I am always open to new ideas about autosurf traffic in any way I can think of. Have a great day :-)
# posted by : 8:40 AM
: 8:40 AM
Get your site heard in our international phone directory
Make us your homepage and read the daily updated articles.
Make us your homepage and read the daily updated articles.
# posted by : 5:39 PM
: 5:39 PM
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a second mortgage site/blog. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you have time :-)
Post a Comment
I have a second mortgage site/blog. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you have time :-)
# posted by : 8:11 PM
: 8:11 PM << Home
