Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Canards and Petards

On Friday, I'll be one of three commentators on a Cornell Law School panel discussing the new book by Larry Alexander and my colleague Emily Sherwin, Demystifying Legal Reasoning. In addition to the authors, the other commentators will be Heidi Hurd and Fred Schauer. The book is organized around the provocative idea that there is nothing distinctive about legal reasoning as such. In common law cases, the authors say, judges either make discretionary decisions based on all-things-considered normative judgments (sometimes accompanied by the promulgation of a rule) or follow rules. In cases involving the interpretation of an authoritative text (including a precedent that has the force of law), courts simply seek the intent of the lawmakers in the same way that in ordinary discourse, people try to discern what other people intend by the words they use. Thus, say the authors, because laypeople know how to do all-things-considered normative reasoning and also know how to makes sense of the utterances of other people, there is nothing distinctive about legal reasoning. They have therefore "demystified" legal reasoning.

There is much to praise in this book, including the fact that while it tackles some quite deep issues in jurisprudence, it is written in a marvelously engaging and accessible way. (It's especially fun to enjoy the inside jokes: Most of the protagonists in the authors' hypothetical examples bear only first names but are nonetheless recognizable as law professor friends of the authors.) I should also say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the framing of the project, especially on the common law side. Indeed, I'd like to think that I scooped Alexander and Sherwin in a FindLaw column back in 2001, in which I opined: "There is no such thing as thinking like a lawyer. There is only clear thinking and confusion."

Nonetheless, I'm not fully sold.  In the common law portion of their book, Alexander and Sherwin want to deny that there is a middle ground between ordinary moral (I would say "normative" but that's a quibble) reasoning and rule following.  Their real target appears to be reasoning by analogy, which, they think, collapses into one or the other: either a court isn't following a rule laid down in prior cases, and can therefore decide what the appropriate similarities and dissimilarities are, or it is.  While I'm happy to agree with the big point that analogical reasoning isn't distinctly "legal," I do think it occupies a middle ground.  Certainly the felt experience of lawyers and judges is that reasoning by analogy constrains, even when it does not fully determine, outcomes.  That perception could be wrong, but then so could the perception that lawmakers (and other speakers) have  mental states called "intentions" that we attach to language, a key assumption of Alexander and Sherwin in their matierals on interpretation of authoritative texts.

Speaking of interpretation of authoritative texts, I'm also dubious about much of what Alexander and Sherwin have to say about this subject. They defend old-fashioned intentionalism against more current views such as textualism and dynamic interpretation. In this regard, the book can be seen as part of a growing backlash that includes, most notably, Stanley Fish.

Alexander and Sherwin (and Fish and others) don't simply say that the best method of interpreting legal texts is to retrieve the meaning intended by the speaker. They claim that this is simply what it means to interpret a legal text. They acknowledge that there may be occasions in which it would be appropriate for legal actors to seek something other than the meaning intended by the lawmaker at the time of enactment, but if so, they say, that is because some external consideration prevails over interpretation (or perhaps because a strategy of seeking something other than the lawmaker's intended meaning will actually do a better job, over the long run, of retrieving the lawmaker's intended meaning) .

In my oral presentation, I'm going to push Alexander and Sherwin on what I regard as their too-easy dismissal of the problem of finding or constructing an intent from a composite body such as a legislature with hundreds of members. To somewhat oversimplify their answer, they say that the law means whatever points of intention upon which the legislators agreed, and that where there is no agreement, there is no law. Because they give mostly hypothetical and simple examples, they do not give a sense of how frequently this will result in a failure of legislation in the real world of long complex statutes.

I'm also going to push the authors on a related point: that legislative codes and constitutions are produced over long stretches of time, with amenders making changes based on their view of what the text means, which is not necessarily what the text meant to the original authors or intervening amenders. Given this inter-temporal collaboration, there are several plausible answers to whose intent should matter, even for an intentionalist: The authors of particular surviving phrases? The most recent authors of any significant amendment? The ratifiers? Etc. Identifying the author, it seems to me, is very much dependent on one's account of legitimate political authority, not just on one's account of language.

I think Alexander and Sherwin accept this last point. (I can ask them if that's what they intended when they wrote the book!) They would say, I think, that their point is simply that if we're interpreting, we want speaker's meaning, but that this fact doesn't answer the separate question of who the speaker is. Still, there are stray passages in the book that do seem to advert to notions of legitimacy that could be read to smuggle notions of political theory into what purports to be an account of language.

But if I'm right that the better reading of Alexander and Sherwin is simply clarificatory, it's not entirely clear what the book's goal is. The clarificatory point would seem to be this: If you're going to do interpretation, you're going to be aiming at retrieving speaker's meaning; if you're retrieving something else---original public meaning, or evolving meaning, say---then you're either relying on a view that is ultimately parasitic on speaker's meaning or you're doing something other than interpretation.

Well, so what? If Justice Scalia's account of the best way to read authoritative texts (textualism) is not properly called interpretation, call it Scalinterpretation. If Judge Posner's account (pragmatism) is not properly called interpretation, call it Posninterpretation. Etc. And anyway, who are Alexander and Sherwin to say how the word "interpretation" can legitimately be used? Their central argument in the second half of the book is that speakers control how their words are used. They repeatedly use the example of "canard," which can mean either a duck or a lie, depending on what the speaker intends. Well, then, why can't "interpretation" mean what Scalia, Posner, or anyone else thinks it should mean to produce the best account of how to give effect to legal texts? We shall see whether this objection hoists Alexander and Sherwin on their own canard.

Posted by Mike Dorf

11 comments:

Chris said...

"[L]egislative codes and constitutions are produced over long stretches of time..."

The individual bits are all produced at particular points, though, and when they use terms like "now," they plainly refer to that particular time. See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. I sec. 9 cl. 1 ("any of the States now existing"); 25 U.S.C. § 479 ("any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction") (at issue in Carcieri v. Kempthorne). See here at 59-61 for more argument.

I agree, though, that Knapp-Michaels-Fish-style universal intentionalism by itself doesn't preclude an intergenerational constitutional or statutory author.

Jamison Colburn said...

I've finally had the chance to read this book (and wished I'd been at the get-together!). I like their hard-nosed insistence that there is nothing all that special about "legal" reasoning as opposed to practical reasoning more generally. But it seems like A&S's denial of analogical reasoning's existence is tied innately to their picture of being constrained as an official. Judges, of course, are officials who happen to be empowered to apply the law. And, according to A&S, "[t]he outcome of one case, without more, carries no logical implications for the outcome of another case." [118]

But this is either trivially true or flat wrong, isn't it? If one is empowered to apply the law only within the constraints of certain norms, one is constrained to apply the law in a prescribed way. In general, they say that "[t]he need for legal reasoning comes about when members of a community confer authority on certain individuals to settle moral controversies." [9] And the way we've empowered our judges is irremediably connected to a duty to decide like cases alike -- unless the precedent-setting case was clearly wrong.

Even though it's almost never cited, I still think the piece that Scott Brewer did on analogical reasoning in law about ten years ago in Harvard remains the best--and, if I recall correctly, takes this approach to judicial uses of analogy.

koko said...

出会い人妻 出会い人妻 出会い人妻 出会い熟女 出会い熟女 出会い熟女 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会い熟女不倫人妻 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会い人妻 出会いセフレ 出会い人妻 出会いセフレ 出会い人妻 出会いセフレ 出会い熟女 出会い熟女 出会いセフレ 出会い人妻 出会い人妻 出会い人妻 出会い人妻 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会い人妻 出会いセックスフレンドセックスフレンドセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンド 出会い不倫 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセフレ 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンドセックスフレンドセックスフレンド 出会いセフレ 出会いセフレ 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いセフレセックスフレンド 出会いセフレセフレセックスフレンドセックスフレンド人妻 出会いセフレセフレ熟女セックスフレンドセフレ人妻 出会い熟女熟女 出会いセックスフレンドセフレセフレセフレ 出会い熟女 出会い熟女 出会いセフレセフレ人妻 出会い人妻 出会いセックスフレンドセックスフレンド熟女セックスフレンドセフレ人妻 出会い熟女 出会い人妻 出会い人妻 出会いセフレ 出会い大人 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いアダルト 出会い人妻 出会い熟女 出会いセフレ 出会い大人 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いアダルト 出会い人妻 出会い熟女 出会いセフレ 出会い大人 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いアダルト 出会い人妻 出会い熟女 出会いセフレ 出会い大人 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いアダルト 出会い人妻 出会い熟女 出会いセフレ 出会い大人 出会いセックスフレンド 出会いアダルト 出会い人妻 出会い熟女 出会い投資顧問株式投資競馬予想投資顧問株式投資投資顧問株式投資オンラインカジノオンラインカジノブックメーカー年末ジャンボ宝くじ年末ジャンボ宝くじ年末ジャンボ宝くじ年末ジャンボ宝くじ年末ジャンボ宝くじ商品先物商品先物海外投資海外投資海外投資海外投資海外投資海外投資海外投資

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

I am so happy to get some last chaos gold and the lastchaos gold is given by my close friend who tells me that the lastchaos money is the basis to enter into the game. Therefore, I should buy last chaos gold with the spare money and I gain some cheap lastchaos gold from other players.

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工

bobo said...

Enter the necessary language translation, up to 200 bytes winter, moves frequently in China, tn chaussuresshowing that the deep strategy of the Chinese market. Harvard Business School, according to the relevant survey data show that in recent years the Chinese market three brands nike chaussures, Adidas, Li Ning market share at 21 percent, respectively, 20%, 17%. The brand is first-line to three lines of urban competition for mutual penetration. Side of the world, announced layoffs, nike tnwhile China's large-scale facilities fists. The sporting goods giant Nike's every move in the winter will be fully exposed its strategy. Years later, the Nike, Inc. announced the world's Fan

peter.w said...

塑料托盘,塑料栈板 四川塑料托盘,塑料栈板 成都塑料托盘,塑料栈板 自贡塑料托盘,塑料栈板 攀枝花塑料托盘,塑料栈板 泸州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 德阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 绵阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 广元塑料托盘,塑料栈板 遂宁塑料托盘,塑料栈板 内江塑料托盘,塑料栈板 乐山塑料托盘,塑料栈板 南充塑料托盘,塑料栈板 宜宾塑料托盘,塑料栈板 广安塑料托盘,塑料栈板 达州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 轻型仓储货架|轻量型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 中量型仓储货架|中量A型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 中量型仓储货架|中量B型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 横梁式仓库货架|重型仓储货架|货位式库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 模具货架|抽屉式仓库货架|仓储货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 贯通式仓储货架|通廊式仓库货架|驶入式库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 悬臂式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 阁楼式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架|钢平台 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 流利式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架|辊轮式货架|自滑式货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 工作台|工作桌 工具柜|工具车 托盘|塑料托盘|钢托盘|铁托盘|钢制托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼 周转箱|塑料周转箱 静音手推车|铁板手推车|购物手推车|登高车 手动液压托盘搬运车|不锈钢搬运车|电子秤搬运车 高起升搬运车|电动搬运车|平台车 手动液压堆高车|手动液压堆垛车|半电动堆垛车 全电动堆垛车|油桶搬运车|圆桶搬运车|油桶装卸车| 柴油内燃平衡重式叉车|电动平衡重式叉车 液压升降机|剪叉式高空作业平台|固定式蹬车桥 文件柜 不锈钢制品 零件盒|零件柜 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 钢托盘 钢制料箱 堆垛架 物流台车 手推车 钢托盘 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|金属托盘|镀锌托盘 堆垛架|巧固架 钢制料箱 物流台车|载物台车 手推车|静音手推车 手推车|静音手推车 仓储笼|钢托盘|钢制料箱|堆垛架|物流台车|手推车 仓储笼|钢托盘 仓储笼 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架 塑料托盘|栈板 钢托盘|钢制托盘 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 托盘|钢托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 周转箱|塑料周转箱 托盘|纸托盘 料箱|钢制料箱 工具柜|工具车|抽屉柜 工作台|工作桌 刀具柜|刀具车|刀具架 手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|手动叉车 仓储笼 仓库笼 南京仓储笼 常州仓储笼 无锡仓储笼 苏州仓储笼 徐州仓储笼 南通仓储笼 镇江仓储笼 连云港仓储笼 泰州仓储笼 扬州仓储笼 盐城仓储笼 淮安仓储笼 宿迁仓储笼 轻量型货架|角钢货架 中量A型货架 中量B型货架 货位式货架 横梁式货架 阁楼式货架|钢平台 悬臂式货架 贯通式货架|通廊式货架|驶入式货架 辊轮式货架|流利条货架 压入式货架 移动式货架|密集架 模具货架 抽屉式货架 汽车4S店货架 汽配库货架 自动化立体仓库货架 托盘|钢托盘|钢制托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 手推车|铁板手推车 手推车|静音手推车 置物架|工业置物架|家用置物架 堆垛架|巧固架 挂板架|物料整理架 登高车 物流台车|载物台车 料箱|钢制料箱 搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 堆高机|堆垛机|手动堆高机|电动堆高机 叉车|电动叉车|内燃叉车|叉车厂 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|横梁式货架|中型货架 钢托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架> 仓储货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|中型货架|横梁式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 托盘|塑料托盘|栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢制周转箱|网格式料箱 搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 塑料托盘|塑料栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢质周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|液压搬运车 仓储货架|>仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|中型货架|横梁式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 塑料托盘|塑料栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢质周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|托盘搬运车 货架|仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|上海货架|北京货架 轻型货架|中型货架|搁板式货架 重型货架|横梁式货架|托盘式货架 托盘|木托盘|纸托盘|木塑托盘 托盘|钢托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 手推车|静音手推车|铁板手推车 物料架|整理架|挂板架 料箱|钢制料箱|钢制周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|半电动堆高车|手动叉车 塑料周转箱|物流箱|塑料化工桶|塑料卡板箱 工具柜|上海工具柜|南京工具柜|抽屉柜 工作台|工作桌|南京工作台|上海工作台 刀具车|刀具柜|刀具架|刀具座 货架 货架厂 货架公司 仓储货架 仓库货架 库房货架 南京货架 上海货架 托盘 钢托盘 钢制托盘 货架|轻量型货架|角钢货架 货架|中量型货架|次重型货架 货位式货架|横梁式货架|重量型货架 仓储货架|阁楼式货架|钢平台 仓储货架|悬臂式货架 仓储货架|贯通式货架|通廊式货架|驶入式货架 仓库货架|库房货架|抽屉式货架|模具货架 仓库货架|库房货架|汽车4S店货架|汽配库货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架|上海货架|无锡货架|苏州货架 货架厂|货架公司|北京货架|天津货架|沈阳货架|大连货架 货架厂|货架公司|广州货架|深圳货架|杭州货架 托盘|钢托盘|钢制托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 置物架|多功能置物架|卫浴置物架 料箱|钢制料箱|钢制周转箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|不锈钢托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|半电动堆高车|电动堆高车|堆垛车 货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 货架 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 货架 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 托盘 塑料托盘 钢托盘 钢制托盘 铁托盘 货架厂 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 南京货架 货架公司 货架厂 仓库货架 仓储货架 货架 货架

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

酒店經紀ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,領檯姐.,便服店,,

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,,