5.21.2008

National Review solves Fermat's Last Theorem

Let's say there's a football game between the Bears and the Giants. The linescore reads as follows:

Team        1st      2nd      3rd      4th
Bears 0 6 14 7
Giants 3 7 0 10
Which team won? Well, the thing most of us would do is to add the score from the four quarters together, which yields Bears 27, Giants 20. Rex Grossman must have had a good day and thrown only two interceptions.

But Byron York of the National Review would declare the Giants the winner. Why? Although losing the game, the Giants won more quarters. And as we all know, that's the way any good, red-blooded American scores a football game.

Yes, he really did make this argument about Hillary Clinton and the primaries:
There have been four quarters in the Democratic presidential nomination battle. We’re late in the fourth quarter now, and when it’s over, Hillary Clinton will likely have won three of the quarters — and won the most votes overall — but lost the game.
Mr. York? Mr. York? There's a Mr. Wolfson for you on line four.

33 comments

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I saw that myself, and felt my jaw drop. I mean sure, it's the national review, but it's almost like there's some memo going around saying, "You know all that stuff you accused Obama's supporter's of? The adulation, the emphasizing of the candidate's symbolism as well as his electoral appeal? Well, copy all of it and yell about the popular vote really loudly, and mebbe throw in some feminism so nobody can hear the counterargument."

El Cid said...

One is truly moved by the absolutely open, honest, and well-intentioned support by prominent Republican pundits which Hillary Clinton is receiving, since when they say that they are keeping in mind the best interests of the Democratic Party and liberals in general, they must be, because, like, why would Republicans lie about that sort of thing?

rilkefan said...

That argument is silly, but the argument that later voters have more information and should be weighted more heavily might be sensible.

Re the previous comment - do you really want to own the crazy arguments the VRWC makes against Clinton, and maybe throw in some racism so nobody can hear the counterargument? So what if that's Little Green Footballs' POV?

rilkefan said...

... previous anon comment...

538/poblano said...

rilkefan,

The two problems with that are that:

1) Obama's lead has been expanding rather than contracting in the national polls.

2) Democratic rules actually do weight the later contests more heavily in terms of delegates.

Josh said...

I am sure a lot of eggheads and political junkies read this site, but how many people actually know what Fermat's Last Theorem is? I love the obscure reference.

vosh said...

rilkefan, I personally don't think giving any voter more weight than another is ever sensible but it's certainly true that later voters have more information and that is one reason among hundreds why the "popular vote" is fraudulent. Voters in later states have a big advantage. Imagine if the general election were decided over the course of five months, with a vast majority of voters being required to vote 3-5 months before the race is over.

California and New Jersey didn't get to see Clinton's Obliterate Iran/Gas Tax Holiday side. Maybe that is why recent Survey USA polls show Obama would now defeat Clinton in those states.

Iowa and New Hampshire voters were presented with a Clinton who said Florida and Michigan "wouldn't count for anything." Now they know the truth.

Clinton has outperformed Obama slightly - by about 3% - in the "4th quarter" because she's had the home-field advantage. Aside from those two rough patches during the establishment media's flogging of Jeremiah Wright, Obama has consistently mainted a 6-85 lead on Clinton nationally. Currently he's up 12%.

Clinton's veer to the right to capitalize on the primary calendar's trip through Appalachia appears to have come at the cost of losing a lot of liberals, as evidenced by Obama trouncing her in Oregon.

And it makes me sick to admit it but the reality is that Operation Chaos was also a factor.

AJ said...

Thanks for doing a piece on this-- I read it and thought, where can I write a criticism of this weird math? And how can we get so upset about the injustice of not counting Florida and Michigan (therefore include them in the popular vote totals), but leave Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington out because it's just too hard to know how many votes were cast there?

Maybe Hillary should start using Mike Huckabee's line-- "I didn't major in math, I majored in miracles."

MUSIC BLOG said...

It's mind-blowing to me how absolutely ridiculous the rationalizations coming from Clinton's campaign and supporters are now.

What ridiculous metric will they come up with next. "If the game was scored this way, we'd be winning!"

Anonymous said...

The Continental Basketball Association used to award quarter points, one point to the team that scored the most points in each quarter, plus three points for the team who won the game. A winning team was guaranteed between 4 to 7 points per game. Too bad Mr. York is not clued in to sports enough to pick the more appropriate analogy.

Anonymous said...

Wow -- what a moronic way of taking a perfectly good idea and messing it up. There is one league out there that does take the quarterly scores into account. The CBA (minor league basketball), in order to keep everybody interested in a blowout, gives 3 points in the standings for winning the game overall, and 1 point for winning each quarter.

Note that this is much different than the proposal. Since the overall game winner has to win at least one quarter, the overall winner gets at least 4 points, and the overall loser gets no more than 3. If there is only one game (sorry, no carry-overs to 2012), the game winner is still the game winner.

What a tangled web we weave when first we try to make up for coming up short.

Anonymous said...

Poblano -- the link to York's artice is broken.

Anonymous said...

re rilkefan
heh, that did sound sort of paranoid/generalizing, didn't it? Yeah, I can see the nuance, and it took me googling VRWC to find out what it was, but I certainly wouldn't want to stand anywhere near, much less shoulder to shoulder with such people. I'm just frustrated with people taking Senator Clinton's drive towards the center as the birth of her own inspirational movement, or evidence of a supreme irony about how campaigning against Sen. Obama made her a stronger candidate, but too late - instead of the typical mad dash to the center of an election end-game, combined with realpolitik acknowledging the reddish hue of most Democrats that were left to vote.

Mac Zilber said...

What I also find hilarious about that line of reasoning is that she didn't win the majority of the "quarters." In terms of press coverage, albeit not actual delegates, here's how the quarters would be divvied up:

1st Quarter: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
Obama won this quarter by 35 delegates, tying or winning the delegate battle in every state.

2nd Quarter: Super Tuesday

Obama won this "quarter" by 3 delegates, finishing far better than anybody expected him to due to his caucus state dominance.

3rd Quarter: The time from Super Tuesday to March 4th

Obama wins this quarter by 129 delegates, losing only Ohio and Rhode Island

4th Quarter: Mississippi, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, South Dakota, Montana, Puerto Rico

Clinton currently leads by 13 in this quarter, and will likely finish the quarter with a 10-17 delegate lead. This is the only quarter that she has "won," and, to continue the sports analogy, most of those points were scored in garbage time. If a basketball team loses by 5 points in the first quarter, 1 point in the second, and 20 in the third, then the fact that you win the fourth quarter by 2-3 points while the other team's bench is in the game is not exactly something worth bragging about.

Anonymous said...

As you suggested in your other thread, you are correct that the CLintons have run an increasing ly irrational campaign. What's disturbing is the sheer number of irration kindred spirits they've accumulated along the way.

Who can blame Obama of speaking about getting past distractions. The Clintons and their supporters have thrown dozens of useless metrics in the path.

I'm embarrassed for them. Bill Clinton's legacy is irreparably damaged and will never be the same.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that the right wingers really fear facing Obama. Why else would they be fighting so hard for her.

Redshift said...

"Seems to me that the right wingers really fear facing Obama. Why else would they be fighting so hard for her."

It's pretty simple -- because if the Dem nomination isn't clearly resolved, there's a lot more chance the losing side's voters will stay home, benefiting the GOP. They "supported" Obama and attacked Clinton a lot more when she was the frontrunner. Based on turnout numbers, they have a lot to fear from either one; I don't think they're sincerely favoring either one, they're just serving their own interests.

Matthew said...

Thanks, Mac, for pointing that out, although I have different numbers for how many delegates Obama netted in each "quarter." For example, current counts have Obama netting not 3 delegates on Super Tuesday, but 33. No matter, though.

I had to go and read the article to find out exactly how this guy could even argue that Clinton had won any quarters at all. I guess this guy was using a meaningless metric to draw his conclusions: the popular vote, which conveniently includes MI and FL, and excludes IA, NV, WA, and ME.

If we want to further the football analogy, his argument is more like Clinton gaining more _yards_ in 3 quarters, no matter than Obama scored more points in two of those. Never mind that Obama has clearly gained more yards if you don't count the ones during pregame warm ups when he wasn't on the field. And oh yeah, he has an insurmountable lead in actual points.

Thankfully, it looks like the superdelegates turn a deaf ear to these silly arguments from the pundits.

Rorgg said...

If forced to go through this absurd exercise, I'd ask what his quarters were where Hillary won either of the first two. Until March 4, there was no primary day in the campaign where Hillary picked up more delegates than Obama. He picked up more in Iowa, they tied in NH, he got more in SC, more in NV, more on Super Tuesday, and we know what happened the rest of February.

The only way his argument even makes internal sense is if you're counting Florida and/or Michigan in such a way as to overwhelm some of those contests that actually awarded delegates. It's his hidden assumption, and really just blows any credibility out of the water.

Anonymous said...

Funny,
I wrote Mr. York yesterday about his swill. Is seems that he would love to peg the Dems as controlled by the "elites". Needless to say he hasn't responded.

Anonymous said...

the shfartza candidate lost in new york, new jersey, pennsylvania, texas, ohio, indiana and cali. he won the south due to shfartzas.

Anonymous said...

Re: Previous Anon

For those who speak yiddish, that s-word is as bad as the n-word. If there is a moderator around, please delete that comment? thanks

hosertohoosier said...

I'll defend the spirit of the analogy, if not its precise form. You are all operating under the notion that it is iron-clad that the DNC pick whoever won the most delegates or votes - hence, when they won it is irrelevant. That is procedurally correct, but not correct in practice.

The super-delegates can pick whatever metric they want in choosing a delegate. Winnability IS a legitimate factor - quarters, while procedurally irrelevant constructs - nonetheless tell you something. Obama started losing when he became the frontrunner (a lot of that is explained by which states were slated late in the primaries, but Clinton also lost in places she should have won in February, like Wisconsin).

It is legitimate to ask, if you are a superdelegate trying to elect the best possible candidate, whether you are going to get Obama the post-racial saviour of America (February) or Obama with reverend Wright on his back (or whatever electability problem you want to pick).

By the way, when polled (its on pollingreport somewhere) Democrats chose "pick the best candidate" as their preferred metric for superdelegates. Second was "most votes" (each got 30-40% in various polls). Most delegates got 10-15 (even though it is the most legitimate, since the popular vote underestimates caucus states).

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh at the indignant replies that the popular vote includes FL and MI but not four caucus states that didn't bother to count attendees. Obama gets almost his entire delegate lead from lopsided caucus wins that would have been much closer had they been primaries (see WA, NE, and TX primary vs. caucus results). But you want it both ways - a lopsided win on low turnout, and have it count in the popular vote as if it were a primary. Live by the caucus, die by the caucus. They didn't count voters because they are undemocratic - they didn't care how many people showed up. FL and MI did and that's why they're in the total.

By the way, WA did hold a primary, and they did count those voters. Unfortunately for Obama he only won by 5-points, not 37 like the caucus, so I guess you don't want to count those people.

Anonymous said...

Almost all of the arguments above, including poblano's post, are attacking a straw argument that York is creating a new metric of "quarters won", and adding it up incorrectly according to the delegate math.

But if you actually read the article, he is talking solely about the popular vote - not delegates - and is dividing the contests into "quarters" to show trends, not to reward the quarter "winner". He includes FL but not MI - not unreasonable - and simply adds up the votes to find that Clinton won more votes pre-Super Tuesday, narrowly won more votes on Super Tuesday, that Obama won many more votes in the Feb 9-19 run, and then Clinton won many more in the March 4-present run. He adds up all the votes and finds Clinton trailing overall, but with a good chance to lead after June 3rd. For trend analysis these "quarters" are very useful. Clearly the race was tight early on, then Obama ran away with it in February, and Clinton battled back in the late primaries.

York doesn't include the 4 non-reporting caucus states (IA, NV, ME, and WA), but you can apply the RCP estimates to York's totals and see that it doesn't alter the analysis. She would still lead pre-Super Tuesday with Iowa and Nevada estimates included (remember she won Nevada's caucuses even though Obama eventually took more delegates), and would still lose the February 9-19 run with Maine and Washington estimates included. Overall, she would still trail but would still have a good chance of winning after Puerto Rico, Montana, and SD.

You may disagree with using the popular vote as a metric, but York's point is simply that if Clinton does win the popular vote, the Democratic party may find it has angered her supporters in the same way Gore supporters were angry after 2000, and that unlike 2000, Democrats have the luxury of resolving this however they choose, so they will have no one to blame but themselves.

vosh said...

York did not do any analysis of the trend. He simply pointed out, totally without context and by including Florida's illegitimate, unsanctioned straw poll that had very low turnoutout. He then acted as if the trend itself was some sort of accomplishment for Clinton, which is why so many here have been laughing at him. It was not analysis but spin clearly yet pathetically designed to bolster Clinton's argument for delegitimizing Obama.

As for Democrats being able to resolve this, no, Clinton has made that impossible. Obama clearly wrapped this up in February. From then on the question has simply been how far Clinton would go to taint Obama's victory. Tentatively, our answer was her trip to the infamous Florida counties of Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach to cast herself as Gore and Obama as Bush. Any resolution has to begin with Clinton ceasing to count the straw polls in Michigan and Florida, giving Obama nothing from Michigan and discounting the caucus states.

The Grand Panjandrum said...

Did you crib Taylor and Wile, or is this your own work?

徵信社robin said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信

徵信, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, , 徵信公司, , , , , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, , , , 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, , , , , 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, , , , 徵信, 徵信社, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,