Author
|
Topic: Cool Comic Booklets. (Read 118431 times)
|
|
|
Toroid
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 2
|
Religion, not philosophy. But yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Thanx for your thoughtful response Novus. I think you summed it all up nicely. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote and the only real difference is a point of view.
I'll admit that design holds a bit of bias for me that is completely unscientific. Design is a much more intellectually satisfying concept than life arising and then evolving via. the blind, purposeless, intrinsic properties of nature, at least to me.
Also the ID people hold a certain "underdog" appeal to me. The rampant stero-typing, name calling, marginalizing and outright dismisal without even taking the time to review their arguments we've seen from the scientific community represents the little guys trying to be heard amongst the giants.
Recently, this has begun to change. Peer-reviewed papers form ID advocates are starting to find their way into scientific journals.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
This is still rare but at least it is happening to some degree. And why not? If chemical evolutionary origins and evolutionary theory is on such concrete, scientific, factual underpinnings, why should any darwinist be concerned? In my opinion, legitimate scientific criticism and dissent by other scientists should be encouraged as it will only challenge and ultimately result in a better understanding of the universe around us.
Finally, as was pointed out before, evolution and ID aren't really that much at odds, other than the random mutation/natural selection mechanisim that supposidly drives it. So I don't reject evolution outright, I'm just concerned with the lack of evidence for it. If conclusive evidence does surface someday, I'm right there with ya.
Meep: What is it about these so-called transitional fossils that makes you certain that they are transitional? If palentologist's only knowledge of say a caterpillar and a butterfly were found in the fossil record, what do you suspect their conclusion would be? If the only knowledge of a duckbilled platypus and a duck were found in the fossil record what do you suspect their conclusion would be? Or how about a bulldog and a doxen?
Also, why should we only expect to find transitional animals in the fossil record? Did natural selection select every single one of them out and none are living today? If scientists do say they live today then I'm not aware of any such claims.
Darwin himself was embarassed by the lack of transitional fossils during his time. He was certain that they would eventually be found in abundance because his theory predicted it. To date we have maybe a handful of questionable examples.
Fossils from the Burgess Shale in Canada has shown quite a few new phyla that were never known to exist . Invertibrate worms with spines is one of my favorites. I read an estimate of around 20+ complete new phyla of animals has been discovered from the Cambrian era to date.
http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/
The point is that we know from fossils that life has taken some very interesting forms. So finding a dinosaur with feathers, although this might be considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds is not nessicarily the case. It may have been a unique spieces of animal in it's own right. Just like a duck-billed platypus with a duck bill, webbed feet, a lizard's poisionus spines, a mammal's fur and is an egg layer..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 2847
|
Meep: What is it about these so-called transitional fossils that makes you certain that they are transitional? How did you get to this remark from what I was saying? I never claimed to be certain about anything, and it isn't even relevant to my point. If we're going to have this discussion, at least read my words with a bit more care.
Also, the term "transitional" is misleading, as evolution is supposed to be ever ongoing.
With "missing link" I mean no more than "a gap in our fossil record of the family tree of species". In evolution, a species doesn't come out of nowhere, and if you have a fossil from an earlier time which shares many similarities with it, you may theorise that this is an ancestor, and you can predict by interpolating what an intermediate species would be like.
Also, why should we only expect to find transitional animals in the fossil record? Did natural selection select every single one of them out and none are living today? If scientists do say they live today then I'm not aware of any such claims. Natural selection will cause those creatures to survive which are most fit to survive in their specific environment. Environments change and species that don't adapt, die out. That said, some species are suited to a wide range of environments, and some environments change more than others. Crocodiles (or alligators, or perhaps both, I don't recall) are said to have been around as they are now for a very long time. And then there's the Coelacanth.
The point is that we know from fossils that life has taken some very interesting forms. So finding a dinosaur with feathers, although this might be considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds is not nessicarily the case. Right. But if you have predicted that some species existed before fossils of it were found, then that does give some credibility to the theory you used to make that prediction.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Meep: What is it about these so-called transitional fossils that makes you certain that they are transitional? How did you get to this remark from what I was saying? I never claimed to be certain about anything, and it isn't even relevant to my point. If we're going to have this discussion, at least read my words with a bit more care.
Never claimed certain?
"May I point out that every now and then fossils of missing links in the evolution of some species are being found."
That seems like a pretty certain, statement of fact to me..Also, the terms "Transitional Species" and "Missing Links" are the same thing. "Missing Link "is rarely used anymore due to it's synonomus use with human ancestors..I apologize for not quoting your use of the words "Missing Links".
Also, the term "transitional" is misleading, as evolution is supposed to be ever ongoing.
With "missing link" I mean no more than "a gap in our fossil record of the family tree of species". In evolution, a species doesn't come out of nowhere, and if you have a fossil from an earlier time which shares many similarities with it, you may theorise that this is an ancestor, and you can predict by interpolating what an intermediate species would be like.
Thank you but I'm well aware of how transitional species are supposed to fill in the missing link gaps in the tree of life.
Natural selection will cause those creatures to survive which are most fit to survive in their specific environment. Environments change and species that don't adapt, die out.
Right..
That said, some species are suited to a wide range of environments, and some environments change more than others. Crocodiles (or alligators, or perhaps both, I don't recall) are said to have been around as they are now for a very long time. And then there's the Coelacanth.
Right . The Coelacanth supposidly went extinct roughly 80 millon years ago. Then it reappeared in modern times virtually unchanged ie. no evolution in 80 million years.
I understand what you are saying and understand the principles behind it, however, what we see in the fossil record is this:
a)almost every animal alive today we have found MANY examples of, or MANY very close realitives to them (non macro).
b)we have found MANY fossils of animals not alive today and they are all either very close realitives to one another (non macro) or they are very different from one another.
c)we have found VERY FEW conclusive "missing links" or transitional spieces between them.
This mimics what we see alive today. Huge numbers of frog species, Huge numbers of Bird spiecies, huge numbers of cat species etc. and no conclusive "missing links". Shouldn't that be predictided in an ongoing evolution? And why is it we are finding fossils by the hundreds pretty much daily all over the globe and the vast, overwhelming majority of them fit into category a or b yet c comes along once in a decade maybe?
If all life came from single celled animals one would think we should be finding "missing links" by the ton...
Right. But if you have predicted that some species existed before fossils of it were found, then that does give some credibility to the theory you used to make that prediction.
True, but it is my understanding that the scientific community didn't embrace the concept of dinos evolving into birds until after they found the fossils. And it's still a fairly divisive issue to this day.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 12, 2006, 07:38:23 am by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
You know RT, I'm not sure if you keep purposfully misunderstanding me, or if my explanations are woefully inadequate. Some of your replies here just do not make sense, and others miss my point. Still, I'll make another attempt at it.
There are many darwinian scientists that are wrong. In the 70's there was an origin theory that the first protiens self assembled without help from RNA or DNA (somthing predestination). This was embraced throughout the scientific community and thus it was thought life was inevitible in the right conditions. That is in the trash bin now. The evolutionary theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is almost unanimously rejected now.
There are scientists studying cold fusion which may ultimately be a complete waste of time. The whole point I was trying to make is that it's OK to try and fail even if somthing is deemed ridiculous by the majority.
If this is the case, I am certainly not the only one failing in making my points clear. Let me give you an insight of how what you posted looked like to other people (or me, at any rate).
If you even reflect upon this for a moment, it may invoke images of Copernicus or Galilao who suggested *gasp* The earth revolves around the sun. They were branded heretics by the roman catholic church. Skip ahead a few centuries and you have Alaxander Graham Bell's telephone that the Britsih brighest scientific minds called a toy, and that Britian had "enough young messenger boys". Or you have scientists at such notable "prestigious" (and I use that term loosely) institutions as "Scientific American" who ridiculed Wilbur and Orvile wright because it was "proven" that heavier than air vehicles couldn't fly. How dare they think outside the box! Just look at the Big Bang theory's history...etc.
This is you telling us about all the great things that have come from thinking outside the box. All those wonderful scientific discoveries. At no point do you even mention anyone failing, you just mention the amazing results gained from thinking in a way opposed to the traditional view of that time.
After I point out that not every attempt to think outside the box works as wel las these, your comeback is, "Well, evolution doesn't always work either". This has nothing to do with my point. You then follow up with, "What I meant was that it is alright to try and fail", even though you've made no mention of anyone failing, only people succeeding.
Regrettable, there are really only two conclusions to be drawn here. Either you meant well, but formulated yourself fairly sloppily by omitting the whole "sometimes people fail but that is ok" part. Or you are simply trying to write in a fairly propagandic fashion, using misrepresentation to strengthen your own cause. That of course, is not very conductive to the debate overall.
Back to your detective story. I say the wound was caused by a bullet, you say it was caused by a knife. Ok who is right? Well based on what we DO know about bullet wounds and what we DO know about knife wounds, we can make some predictions.
And immediately you are off again. The point I was originally trying to make was that your detective story was a bad comparison. You claimed, that since detectives can use logical deduction, so should we. The reason it was bad comparison was that detectives also have actual solid evidence, that cannot be disputed.
Is there an exit wound? Is it consistant with bullet wound trauma? Knife wounds leave tell tale slice marks etc.
This is all solid, mutually accepted evidence that we don't have. The point I was trying to make was, that none of your evidence is solid. As you have said yourself, neither ID nor evolution can be proved. Just like a criminal case cannot be proved on theories alone. If you go to court with no physical evidence and try to convict someone of murder, you cannot prove your case. In the same way, you cannot claim that using solely deductive reasoning will make ID a scientific theory, unless you have some even circumstanial proof.
All I'm saying here is that there is criteria we can apply to biological systems to see if it's more consistant with design or random natural forces.
But in the criteria you mentioned are actual physical facts. That's very different from criteria. Equally well, I could say "All biological sytems are imperfect. Therefore a criteria of a biological system is that it is imperfect. My car is imperfect, therefore it is biological". This kind of logical reasoning means you can prove pretty much anything. This is why you need more than just deductive reasoning to prove anything, and especially to make it a scientific theory.
Biochemist Michale Behe coined the phrase "irreducible complexity" and it has never been successfully countered . His book "Darwin's Black Box" has caused quite a stir in the scientific community. Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that any biological structure couldn't be produced by small evolutionary steps, his theory would absolutely break down. Well it has been shown.
"has never been successfully countered"? Unlike Dembski's pseudo-mathematical definition (which is hogwash as I've outlined previously), Behe uses a definition based on whether a part can be removed from a system without preventing it from functiong. Basically, if you can't remove anything from a system without breaking it, it's irreducably complex (IC). The problems with Behe's argumentation are, in brief:
* Behe assumes without evidence (or with broken evidence) that IC lifeforms exist.
* Behe assumes without supporting argumentation that indirect evolution resulting in IC lifeforms is improbable (evidence suggests otherwise).
In other words, Behe's reasoning is both irrelevant and wrong.
For more in-depth critiques, see e.g. the Talk.Origins archive of Behe criticism.
As you can see, it is your opinion that it has not been countered. And our opinion that it has. You may flaunt irreducible complexity around as much as you want, but if you are allowed to question evolutionary theroies, surely other people are allowed to question ID theories? This seems to be a linchpin for you. Everytime you present anything that is refuted, your reply is "LoL that's not right". Not exactly a strong comeback, and in no way a proper rebuttal. If you had entered this discussion, and everyone had just said "LoL ID isn't true", would you have thought us very mature? But seemingly, when you do it it is acceptable?
Ever hear of Caral Sagen? Ever watch PBS and Discovery channel specials which proclaim the "fact" of evolution.. Evolution is presented as fact everywhere you look..In school it was presented as fact as well.
If your broadcasting companies or schools are lacking, surely this is something you should take up with them? Try to remember, on an international board the US =! The world. Where I went to school, it was not presented as fact. I'm curious to other finns and europeans on this board. How were you taught this? is my school an exception, or the rule?
I'm not saying I'm absolutely right. Design is falsifiable. And I do feel I have more evidence than they have. Cladistics is based on bone similarities between fossils and is extremely flimsy. I could use the same logic and conclude a platypus and duck or great dane and poodle are evolutionary linked.
Perhaps not. But you are making a very strong case for ID, whilst claiming that ther is "no factual evidence for evolution"
Evolution is no more proveable than design and evolution has had a 200+ year head start. If you are waiting on a hopeful discovery to substantiate evolution I could use the same argument that scientists could discover ways in which cells design and make decisions.
Except creationism has been around for 2000+ years, actually giving you a head start.
The problem is the evolutionary theory doesn't meet that criteria!!! It is NOT empirically testible and falsifiable.
I apologise for misquoting, even though you could have avoided this misunderstanding by reading the essay. The following sentence reads:
The more of these criteria that a theory meets, the more likely it is to be accepted by the scientific community.
Meaning that you don't necessarily need to fulfill every criteria, but the more the better. ID fullfills none, and Evolution lacks two. Even though one could argue that evolution thefore might be called a "almost Theory", or protoTheory, that isn't really what this whole debate was about. If you recall, this pretty much started, because it was calmed that ID is not a scientific theory. All your slinging of articles back and forth have done very little to change that.
Basically, it comes down to that your approach is flawed. You present a few snippets (deductive reasoning and thinking outside the box come to mind) of motivation for your theory. When they are challenged, you reply with "LoL". You then progress to point out flaws in evolution, which has absolutely nothing to do with wether ID is a scientific theory or not. Even if evolution was completly disproven, this would not automatically make ID true.
This is pretty much the trap that all IDers seem to fall into. Instead of producing any sort of evidence, they try to prove their theory by disproving evolution. As I said on the SC boards, you need to make your own case, that's the only thing that will make a difference.
If everything came from single celled life then the fossil record should be FILLED with millions of transitional fossils, not just a couple of questionable similar boned animals. The fossil record echos what we see today. There are maybe 1000 different spiecies of frog, 1000 different species of spider etc.
Please read up on fossil records. There are a lot of things needed to make a fossil. Not every creature that dies automatically becomes one. In fact, if any one of the factors needed is missing, the fossile doesn't exist. Irreducibly complex eh  More seriously though, fossils aren't actually that common, or that representative. They are rarities, and as such, cannot provide a good extrapolation of what animals have existed. For all we know, 2.3 billion years ago a small race of intelligent 3 legged crabs may have ruled the seas and land. But no fossil records remain, so we've never seen them.
Design is scientificly detectable. That is where our opinions differ. Evolution doesn't stand up to his criteria. I've already covered this
And we've rebuked your claims. and you've replied to them with "LoL". It has been covered, but not very well.
There are scientists that say life as we know does have to have all these things to be possible. Thus in one way it may be an irreducibly complex system in the context that it is needed for somthing else, complex life. The problem is that the planets and stars are governed by well known, simple, cause and effect, naturalistic forces that CAN be tested in the lab. Planets, and moons thus are not an irreducibly complex system by themselves and can only be deemed as such in a certain context. Life on the otherhand doesn't seem to be governed my simple naturalistic forces and doesnt behave in a simple, predictable repeating pattern.
Life does adhere to the same simple naturalistic patterns that planets do. It does not break the lawws of the universe in any way. On a molecular level, life, just as the planets, behaves accordingly to the rules of cause and effect. Unless you want t claim that life is somehow magical and extempt from thermodynamics and suchlike?
To recap. Proving one theory by assaulting another does not work. proving one theory by presenting evidence works, unless the evidence is rebuked. I nthat case, rebuking the rebuttal might work, unless this is done by saying "LoL".
Anyhow, i doubt this will lead to much further. You believe your proof is solid, we believe it is not. You cannot prove yourself right, nor can anyone prove evoltion right (at the moment).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 12, 2006, 09:31:33 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
If your broadcasting companies or schools are lacking, surely this is something you should take up with them? Try to remember, on an international board the US =! The world. Where I went to school, it was not presented as fact. I'm curious to other finns and europeans on this board. How were you taught this? is my school an exception, or the rule?
I went to a fine quality American public school in central New Jersey, and I can say that our science program fell into the same sort of mold as yours. Evolution and Darwinian theories were taught as just that: scientific theories, which explained the way things worked far better than the theories that preceeded them. However, nowhere were they presented as indesputable facts, and in fact, one of the first things we were taught (and a concept that was continually reinforced) was how little we actually understood about biological science, and how incredible breakthroughs were being made every day that helped make the picture a bit clearer. This is one of the reasons I decided to pursue biology after high school; unlike chemistry (where there is not really much left to be discovered) or physics (where the things being discovered are so esoteric, that explaining them to the average person requires at least several hundred pages of reading, and many of them have little to no practical applications), the biological sciences are still largely mysterious, and discoveries are being made constantly that could have potentially dramatic impact on our quality of life.
Let me tell you, some of my teachers from back then are probably horrified that certain school districts now mandate the teaching of pseudoscience like ID in the science programs. Personally, it frightens me; the underlying agenda of 99% of those who advocate ID is well known, and they only try to hide it under the thinnest veil of scientific legitimacy. Isn't it bad enough that we're lagging behind so much in education when compared to the rest of the developed world (and even some of the third world), why do we have to compound this problem by conciously teaching our children misinformation?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 74
|
Let me tell you, some of my teachers from back then are probably horrified that certain school districts now mandate the teaching of pseudoscience like ID in the science programs. Personally, it frightens me; the underlying agenda of 99% of those who advocate ID is well known, and they only try to hide it under the thinnest veil of scientific legitimacy. Isn't it bad enough that we're lagging behind so much in education when compared to the rest of the developed world (and even some of the third world), why do we have to compound this problem by conciously teaching our children misinformation?
This is not where I, personally, worry about our nation's education.
I worry when CALIFORNIANS who graduate from public California schools can't find MEXICO on a world map.
I worry when High School Graduates can't read their own diplomas.
I worry when they can't do basic arithmetic.
I worry when they don't know the difference between an adjective and a noun.
I worry when they can't speak English properly.
I worry when music gets cut from schools, like it isn't important.
I worry when the good students get good grades by being robots, and not by actually thinking.
Intelligent Design being taught in schools as something other than what it is is the least of my worries when it comes to our education. Should it be taught in schools? Perhaps as a philosophy, which is what it is. It is not a religion, though the two are inextricably linked. It is not really biology, either. I DO think we should teach such philosophies in school. ID, Darwinism, and other popular philosphies of today should all be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
...In a philosophy course, maybe, but not in Bio. That's sort of the point I'm getting at here.
Mind you, those problems are a lot more severe than the issue of ID in science class, but not something I can really relate to. I went to a school where those sort of things were not the way things were done. The teachers actually DID care if you learned things (well, most of them anyway), and the administration was not inclined to let you slip by without passing marks (though I know it did occasionally happen). Then again, that was also a different time (I'm not sure if "only" is an appropriate term for describing 10 years ago, but it seems to fit in this case), and a lot can happen. It's not as if I've ever been back to check up on what the school is like now.
But beyond the low end of the bell curve, the idea of teaching ID in science class is much more insidious than a simple case of inadequate education. This is a case where misinformation and pseudoscience is being presented as a viable alternative to real scientific work, and that is arguably a graver matter than not presenting anything at all. Because, much as I hate to admit it, the experiences with education that I had in my youth had a profound impact on who I am and what I do today, much more so even than all the work I did in college (even though that has had much more practical application). I suspect that many (perhaps most) other kids are the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3876
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
As for the so-called 'just-so stories': they are not extensions or additions to the theory! They are merely observations of effects no one had figured out before (in some cases, they had), which are predicted by the theory. It's just that the theory makes so many predictions, it's worthwhile to point them out. This is similar to, say, number theory. All of the theorems of number theory were implied once the axioms were selected, but there are many interesting consequences which are not at all obvious.
Telling a story in a theory is a perfectly valid answer to complaints of the form 'X cannot happen in this theory!' which is all ID says. If we show how X can happen, that's the end of it. Complaining we didn't prove X actually did happen is irrelevant - the argument given is refuted.
And as for the generation of information:
So you have this gene.
Suppose it is copied. Now you have two of them.
Only one of them is needed, so the other one becomes deprotected, mutates like it was on crack. SNP's everywhere
Now you don't have 2 of gene A, you've got two genes.
In what sense is this not the generation of new information?
As for the coelecanth: an unstressed population evolves very very slowly. This is part of punctuated equilibrium.
As for these peer-reviewed articles, I checked over the list. Several of them are not ID, and are not even particularly critical of evolution. One is just pointing out that certain genetic patterns are not formed randomly. That's okay; evolution includes the well-documented self-editing processes we have observed creatures to use!
Besides, you could argue the Earth was designed the same way. Biggest moon in the solar system that stabilises our orbit, just the right orbit from the sun, just the right type of sun, a molten core that creates a magnetic field that protects us from radiation and gives us tectonics. And so on and so forth. Remove any one parameter, and life probably isn't possible. That's irreducibly complex, and thus it must be designed?
I know this was a silly toss-off, but I'd like to point out that we don't need the moon or a magnetic field. The magnetic field isn't protective at all at the poles, and the radiation levels there are quite tolerable. Incidentally, the magnetic field is very likely connected to the moon, since the moon keeps the core churned up.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 12, 2006, 09:52:16 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
I know this was a silly toss-off, but I'd like to point out that we don't need the moon or a magnetic field. The magnetic field isn't protective at all at the poles, and the radiation levels there are quite tolerable. Incidentally, the magnetic field is very likely connected to the moon, since the moon keeps the core churned up.
The presence of the Moon stabilizes Earth's wobble. This has led to a much more stable climate over billions of years, which may have affected the course of the development and growth of life on Earth.
From here. While it is by no means certain that life would not have evolved without this stabilizing presence, it probably didn't hurt. I wont pretend to be an expert on the magnetic field, but any article I dredge up seem to indicate the same thing. for example, here and here, stating things like:
The Earth’s magnetic field may be a crucial reason for life existing on this planet. The field protects the planet from cosmic rays, which would otherwise cause many of the delicate molecules that life depends upon to be damaged.
If this is not the case, could you link me to a source establishing otherwise?
As a sidenote, some people seem to think this indicates an irreducibly complex system, and proof of divine intervention.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 13, 2006, 06:38:34 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3876
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Okay, WOBBLE, I'll buy; but that's not the orbit. Climate stabilization? I don't know if that would be helpful or counterproductive, actually. Always shaking everybody up sure would prevent stagnation.
As for the radiation --
later on that page, a debate cropped up in which folks pointed out that the atmosphere does almost all of our radiation shielding. Several points they raised:
1) the space station is well within the Earth's magnetic field (effectively at the surface as far as it's concerned) but gets large doses of radiation compared to the surface.
2) cosmic rays are the bulk of this radiation, and that is so thoroughly blocked by the atmosphere that cosmic ray observatories have to be put on very tall mountains to see anything at all; and using high-flying balloons is even more common.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Vic
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 10
Like my Sweater?
|
After reading all this I think it is fair to say that this is a shitstorm of ego...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
