|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nero
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Olivencia wrote: |
They are not true because they are ancient. DUHHH. Go back and read the criteria that I actually listed and do some research about the rules of evidence supplied by the founder of the Harvard Law School that I gave a link to.
Incredible how you can make such inane comments like that.
Yawn....boring stupidity good bye  |
Wow, talk about being bogged down in semantics. Who cares about Harvard Law School that you keep twittering on about,
Fox destroyed your 'arguments' and you should leave this thread - embarrased and with your tail between your legs.
It is actually hilarious that you think you won the debate.
God is obviously not the only thing you are delusional about. Shame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| What? A few percentage points over a gigantic population is a huge difference. Imagine if 1% of Americans were to die. Maybe you'd say, "Oh, there's no meaningful difference in the population," but 2 or 3 million people would feel otherwise. 4% is a substantial shift. But yes, feel free to pretend millions of people aren't a meaningful difference. |
The sampling wasn't from a gigantic population, and the 4% difference is not millions of people. Less than 33,000 people were polled.
Also, while reading back through your article, I saw that those polled were separated into three categories: those who believe in a God (notice the capital G), those who believe in some sort of spirit of life force, and the non-religious/spiritual. Curiously, the section you quoted only pulls from the first category. For further consideration, in the conclusion of this analysis, the pollsters only make reference to deviations in traditional forms of religious belief, not all religious and/or spiritual belief.
| Quote: |
| Your example should have been, "Feminists and non-feminists were polled for criminal tendencies. Feminists polled higher with regards to criminal tendency. As a result, feminism and criminal tendencies correlate." See how different that is? That would show a correlation between feminism and crime. Yours shows that feminism increased, and crime also increased, but it doesn't show they increased in the same people. |
No, the example is fine. As feminism increased within the population, so too did violent crime. I made no mention of feminists in my conclusion, only their ideology and the effect it has on the populace.
Though if you'd like, there's a much more obvious comparison between violent crime and a certain segment of the populace I could make that would be extremely analogous to the religious and education... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| What? A few percentage points over a gigantic population is a huge difference. Imagine if 1% of Americans were to die. Maybe you'd say, "Oh, there's no meaningful difference in the population," but 2 or 3 million people would feel otherwise. 4% is a substantial shift. But yes, feel free to pretend millions of people aren't a meaningful difference. |
The sampling wasn't from a gigantic population, and the 4% difference is not millions of people. Less than 33,000 people were polled. |
So your previous post's demonstration of your lack of understanding of statistics was insufficient? You felt the need to show it off more? The sampling wasn't from a gigantic population, but it is representative of a gigantic population. That's the point of statistical sampling. You don't statistically sample 33,000 people just to learn about those 33,000 people. You sample them to learn about a much, much larger group.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Also, while reading back through your article, I saw that those polled were separated into three categories: those who believe in a God (notice the capital G), those who believe in some sort of spirit of life force, and the non-religious/spiritual. Curiously, the section you quoted only pulls from the first category. |
That's because we're talking about religion and education being inversely correlated, not spirituality and education. So thank you on pointing out something totally unrelated.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| For further consideration, in the conclusion of this analysis, the pollsters only make reference to deviations in traditional forms of religious belief, not all religious and/or spiritual belief. |
If you really want to bump up each category by a bit to represent religions which are in the immense minority, go ahead. The important thing is the deviation between the groups. Regarding spirituality on the other hand, that's irrelevent to my point, which is about religion and education.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| No, the example is fine. |
No, it's not fine as anything other than an example of misunderstanding statistics.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| As feminism increased within the population, so too did violent crime. |
Yes, but not necessarily within the same subgroups. That's what the European statistical sampling has that your example lacks. Within each subgroup, there was a correlation between education and religion. In your example, there's no way to know if the group of people behaving in a more criminal fashion is also behaving in a more feminist fashion. They could be totally different groups that just incidentally rose at the same time.
In order to show feminism as having an effect on criminal level, you'd need to take multiple groups with progressively more feminism, and show they also have progressively more crime. This is what's been done with religion vs education, both in this statistical sampling (through the use of progressively higher levels of education), and in general (through the use of many such studies). Surely even you, an ardent defender of religion, must realize that many statistical samplings like this have been taken, and they almost invariably show the same thing: as education increases, religion decreases. According to this for instance, out of 43 studies measuring either educational level or intelligence against tendency towards religion since 1927, 39 of them concluded exactly what I'm claiming here.
There's a pattern. You want to ignore it, and that's fine. It doesn't change the facts.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Though if you'd like, there's a much more obvious comparison between violent crime and a certain segment of the populace I could make that would be extremely analogous to the religious and education... |
Make it. I hope it has something to do with atheism and crime, because I remember what happened last time we discussed atheism and crime on this board: it was shown that atheists are overall less prone to criminal tendencies than theists, and make up a disproportionately small portion of the prison population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| That's not the point I was making. |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| You said that in regards to getting an education "NO-ONE who is religious should be using this as an insult"...in other words there are no Christians/theists who are educated. |
T Rather, it says that, given religion and educational level negatively correlate, the religious should not be using education as a point to mock others, as the religious are overall less educated, not more educated.
However, let's be honest. That's not what you were trying to show me. What you were trying to do is show a positive correlation between education and religion.
. |
This (the part I bolded) is transparently false. I have already quoted the part of your post I had a problem with THREE times. It was the "no one" part. If you had used a different qualifer like "some" or "most" or yes even "overall" I likely would have said nothing.
Like I said before you were the one claiming "no one." Now you've switched the goalposts to "overall". Fine, we can agree on that. And you also agree that there are some theists who are educated. Great. Now we've reached agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| This (the part I bolded) is transparently false. I have already quoted the part of your post I had a problem with THREE times. It was the "no one" part. If you had used a different qualifer like "some" or "most" or yes even "overall" I likely would have said nothing. |
TUM, the phrase I used is a commonly used rhetorical device. You're only trying to take it absolutely literally to justify your inane, failed attempt to correlate religion with education in a positive way. I don't think anyone is fooled. No goal posts have been changed, no meanings have been changed, nothing. The statement, as it's written, stands. Stop pretending idiom doesn't exist to try to save face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| So your previous post's demonstration of your lack of understanding of statistics was insufficient? You felt the need to show it off more? The sampling wasn't from a gigantic population, but it is representative of a gigantic population. That's the point of statistical sampling. You don't statistically sample 33,000 people just to learn about those 33,000 people. You sample them to learn about a much, much larger group. |
Reread what I quoted. I said a 4% difference wasn't meaningful in the sampling. You responded with saying that a 4% difference is meaningful over a gigantic population. Again, this is not a gigantic sampling, and a 4% difference is not meaningful enough in this sampling.
And don't insult my understanding of statistics. One of the most basic and important things anyone who takes a statistics course learns is how deceptive statistics are. Hell, that's why the courses exist in the first place. And here, one of the ways you are being misleading is by attempting to draw a direct and literal connection between the half a billion in the EU and the less than 33,000 in this sampling. This may give a vague idea about trends in the greater population, but the 4% difference here in this small sampling is insignificant... especially when compared to the massive 20% difference between the first subgroup and the second.
| Quote: |
| That's because we're talking about religion and education being inversely correlated, not spirituality and education. So thank you on pointing out something totally unrelated. |
So you've changed your definition of religion in the last few months? Last I read, you considered religion, faith, and spirituality to be interchangeable terms. So what's your definition of religion these days?
| Quote: |
| Yes, but not necessarily within the same subgroups. That's what the European statistical sampling has that your example lacks. Within each subgroup, there was a correlation between education and religion. |
Within each subgroup, two things occur simultaneously. That's the extent of the correlation you can logically conclude without knowing more. Apply that to either my example or yours, it makes no difference.
| Quote: |
| In your example, there's no way to know if the group of people behaving in a more criminal fashion is also behaving in a more feminist fashion. |
I never said feminists are the ones behaving in a more criminal fashion.
| Quote: |
| They could be totally different groups that just incidentally rose at the same time. |
DING DING DING! Now take this and apply it to the conclusion you are trying to draw in your example.
| Quote: |
| Surely even you, an ardent defender of religion, must realize that many statistical samplings like this have been taken, and they almost invariably show the same thing: as education increases, religion decreases. |
I'm an ardent defender of religion? I'm pretty sure I've said before (granted, this was months ago) that religion is dangerous to the faith it supposedly represents. Maybe I was wrong to jump in here and assume that you were still refusing to separate religion from faith and spirituality.
Anyway, I won't argue that those two events may indeed occur at the same time. What I object to is your insinuation that they are any further connected.
| Quote: |
| Make it. I hope it has something to do with atheism and crime, because I remember what happened last time we discussed atheism and crime on this board: it was shown that atheists are overall less prone to criminal tendencies than theists, and make up a disproportionately small portion of the prison population. |
No, I was going to suggest African-Americans and violent crime. If you want to argue that, based on your statistical evidence alone, that education has an impact on an individual's propensity for being religious, then you must also accept that, based on statistical evidence alone, being an African-American has an impact on an individual's propensity for being violent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Reread what I quoted. I said a 4% difference wasn't meaningful in the sampling. You responded with saying that a 4% difference is meaningful over a gigantic population. Again, this is not a gigantic sampling, and a 4% difference is not meaningful enough in this sampling. |
That would make a whole lot of sense, except the sampling is representative of a gigantic population. This means that a 4% variation in the sample population is representative of a 4% variation in the overall population. That's the entire point of statistical sampling. So stop trying to pretend like 4% isn't meaningful, because it is.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| And don't insult my understanding of statistics. |
Then don't give me cause.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| One of the most basic and important things anyone who takes a statistics course learns is how deceptive statistics are. |
Sure, lying with statistics is easy. Unfortunately for your case, this is a statistical pattern seen in the vast majority of statistical studies undertaken on this topic. It's an obvious pattern, representative of an obvious truth. Try to quibble about it all you like, but it's fairly obviously true.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| This may give a vague idea about trends in the greater population, but the 4% difference here in this small sampling is insignificant... especially when compared to the massive 20% difference between the first subgroup and the second. |
4% is not insignificant. 4% is quite substantial, because that 4% is representative of 4% of a huge population.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| So you've changed your definition of religion in the last few months? Last I read, you considered religion, faith, and spirituality to be interchangeable terms. So what's your definition of religion these days? |
Something can be part of the same overall group while still having some distinguishing characteristics. All birds are chickens, not all chickens are birds. Likewise, while religion and spirituality are part of the same group -- a group that is overall destructive to society and worthy of condemnation -- they can be separated, albeit in a fairly fine fashion, and that's exactly what I've done here. If you can't handle that level of nuance, tough.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I never said feminists are the ones behaving in a more criminal fashion. |
And you also have no reason to believe feminism is the cause of the rise in criminality. On the other hand, these studies give ample reason to believe the rise in education is responsible for the reduction in religion. Why? Because we see the same pattern, in many statistical samplings, spanning many cultures.
It's simply not the same thing, Goat, as much as you want it to be. When we see a pattern in many countries, in many cultures, that is repeated again, and again, and again, it's time to get real. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's the truth.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They could be totally different groups that just incidentally rose at the same time. |
DING DING DING! Now take this and apply it to the conclusion you are trying to draw in your example. |
Impossible, because we see the same pattern repeated in too many situations. Your example of one set of statistics showing crime and feminism both rose could be incidental. In the real world, we see many examples of education rising reducing tendency towards religion, and in many countries and cultures. It happens in too patterned a fashion to be incidental.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Anyway, I won't argue that those two events may indeed occur at the same time. What I object to is your insinuation that they are any further connected. |
Yes, and your objections are baseless. When we see the same results in many statistical samplings, taken from many populations and many cultures, there's obviously a pattern. If you took your feminism vs crime statistical sampling and applied it, for instance, to many European countries (as this study has done), and found that in all those various cultures and countries crime and feminism rose together, and places where feminism rose more, crime also rose more, you'd begin to have a comparable example. In such a circumstance, feminism and crime might actually be related. I don't think any statistical study shows that, though, and we certainly don't have a multitude that show that.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Make it. I hope it has something to do with atheism and crime, because I remember what happened last time we discussed atheism and crime on this board: it was shown that atheists are overall less prone to criminal tendencies than theists, and make up a disproportionately small portion of the prison population. |
No, I was going to suggest African-Americans and violent crime. |
There's a pretty obvious correlation between African Americans and violent crime, honestly. Again, people denying that are just denying reality. We could argue about the reason that correlation exists, and whether said correlation is caused by race or by culture (my guess is culture), but the correlation obviously does exist.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| If you want to argue that, based on your statistical evidence alone, that education has an impact on an individual's propensity for being religious, then you must also accept that, based on statistical evidence alone, being an African-American has an impact on an individual's propensity for being violent. |
It pretty clearly does. I'm not shy about admitting that at all. The only thing in question is why it has an impact. My guess is that African-Americans are far more likely -- due to their history in our country -- to partake in a certain very destructive subculture, but I'm certainly open to other interpretations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
This has to be the longest paged post I have ever had.
Though only, because some people decided to use it as a pro/anti homosexual discussion in religion, by an athiest and a north american christian/religious person. Neither unless they are homosexual should even have a foot in the issue.
Though, I guess, if the word pakistan and taliban does get air time, I guess I can't complain.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Neither unless they are homosexual should even have a foot in the issue. |
A non-homosexual such as myself should not be able to stand up for homosexuals? Thanks for that nugget of social wisdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cangel
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: Jeonju, S. Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just saw a CNN report about the Taliban recruiting kids as suicide bombers. The report showed a "school" that indoctrinated these children and the walls were painted with pictures depiting heaven. The pics of heaven looked lush, and green with lakes and fish a plenty. Looked like what most of us call home... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A non-homosexual such as myself should not be able to stand up for homosexuals? Thanks for that nugget of social wisdom. |
I dont care that you want to support homosexuality, I just would have prefered if you had created you own topic, titled:
"I am an athiest and I think religion sucks and I will support anything that a religious person disagrees with" topic.
Thats all, thanks for discussing whether the Taliban are a beneficial or destructive organisation for Central Asia.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A non-homosexual such as myself should not be able to stand up for homosexuals? Thanks for that nugget of social wisdom. |
I dont care that you want to support homosexuality, I just would have prefered if you had created you own topic, titled:
"I am an athiest and I think religion sucks and I will support anything that a religious person disagrees with" topic. |
Well, we don't always get what we want. Religion only came up in this thread because someone attempted to use religion to justify a hatred of homosexuality, which he in turn brought up because of the Taliban. It evolved quite naturally.
I've never understood people who complain about the topic of threads evolving over time. Threads with very limited scopes tend to die off fast, unless the topic is atypically interesting or atypically broad. The threads that last a long time are threads which, in turn, lead to other conversations. Why can't certain people handle that?
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| Thats all, thanks for discussing whether the Taliban are a beneficial or destructive organisation for Central Asia. |
Destructive, and one of the reasons they are destructive can be seen in this very thread, in the form of Olive's rhetoric. It's related to exactly how the Taliban think, and it's very harmful to society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That would make a whole lot of sense, except the sampling is representative of a gigantic population. This means that a 4% variation in the sample population is representative of a 4% variation in the overall population. That's the entire point of statistical sampling. So stop trying to pretend like 4% isn't meaningful, because it is. |
I'm just gonna repeat what I already said:
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| This may give a vague idea about trends in the greater population, but the 4% difference here in this small sampling is insignificant... especially when compared to the massive 20% difference between the first subgroup and the second. |
| Quote: |
| Sure, lying with statistics is easy. Unfortunately for your case, this is a statistical pattern seen in the vast majority of statistical studies undertaken on this topic. It's an obvious pattern, representative of an obvious truth. Try to quibble about it all you like, but it's fairly obviously true. |
I'm not talking about lying; I'm talking about misinterpreting and misrepresenting data, which is what you're doing with this study. If you're not comfortable with having your data and conclusions questioned, then maybe you should try explaining why there would be a connection between religious belief and education.
| Quote: |
| Likewise, while religion and spirituality are part of the same group [...] they can be separated, albeit in a fairly fine fashion, and that's exactly what I've done here. |
Why?
| Quote: |
| It's simply not the same thing, Goat, as much as you want it to be. When we see a pattern in many countries, in many cultures, that is repeated again, and again, and again, it's time to get real. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's the truth. |
I'm not arguing the trends, just your interpretation.
| Quote: |
| And you also have no reason to believe feminism is the cause of the rise in criminality. On the other hand, these studies give ample reason to believe the rise in education is responsible for the reduction in religion. Why? Because we see the same pattern, in many statistical samplings, spanning many cultures. |
| Quote: |
| Impossible, because we see the same pattern repeated in too many situations. Your example of one set of statistics showing crime and feminism both rose could be incidental. In the real world, we see many examples of education rising reducing tendency towards religion, and in many countries and cultures. It happens in too patterned a fashion to be incidental. |
And what else could possibly be occurring alongside these patterns? Would you argue that people with less educational qualifications are likely to have lower-paying jobs? That those lower-paying jobs along with modernity itself puts more stress on the individual, and that those are much more sensible explanations for the trends you witness? Or nah, education must be having a direct impact on religious tendencies?
| Quote: |
| There's a pretty obvious correlation between African Americans and violent crime, honestly. Again, people denying that are just denying reality. We could argue about the reason that correlation exists, and whether said correlation is caused by race or by culture (my guess is culture), but the correlation obviously does exist. |
See, this is why it's frustrating to debate with you sometimes. You come right to edge of admitting to a view that, while obviously insane, is at least consistent, but you hold back. You're dangling that logical satisfaction right in front of my face, damnit! You're like the tease at the local bar... either let me **** you or just button up your blouse and walk away!
| Quote: |
| It pretty clearly does. I'm not shy about admitting that at all. The only thing in question is why it has an impact. My guess is that African-Americans are far more likely -- due to their history in our country -- to partake in a certain very destructive subculture, but I'm certainly open to other interpretations. |
Why are you open to other explains for African-Americans and their relation to violent crime, but you refuse to allow any other interpretation for the patterns in education and religious belief? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That would make a whole lot of sense, except the sampling is representative of a gigantic population. This means that a 4% variation in the sample population is representative of a 4% variation in the overall population. That's the entire point of statistical sampling. So stop trying to pretend like 4% isn't meaningful, because it is. |
I'm just gonna repeat what I already said:
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| This may give a vague idea about trends in the greater population, but the 4% difference here in this small sampling is insignificant... especially when compared to the massive 20% difference between the first subgroup and the second. |
|
Saying a 4% variation between groups 2 and 3 -- which is representative of millions of people -- is insignificant because there is an even bigger variation between groups 1 and 2 isn't a very strong point. In fact, it doesn't make much sense at all. What we see is a huge change between groups 1 and 2, and then a substantial change between groups 2 and 3. Only someone whose agenda involved denying the pattern in question would argue otherwise.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sure, lying with statistics is easy. Unfortunately for your case, this is a statistical pattern seen in the vast majority of statistical studies undertaken on this topic. It's an obvious pattern, representative of an obvious truth. Try to quibble about it all you like, but it's fairly obviously true. |
I'm not talking about lying; I'm talking about misinterpreting and misrepresenting data, which is what you're doing with this study. |
False.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| If you're not comfortable with having your data and conclusions questioned, then maybe you should try explaining why there would be a connection between religious belief and education. |
I don't believe you are truly intersted in any theories I might put forward on the matter, but rather just want something to attack. I won't provide it. As I say below, it's based on the nature of religion vs the nature of education.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Likewise, while religion and spirituality are part of the same group [...] they can be separated, albeit in a fairly fine fashion, and that's exactly what I've done here. |
Why? |
My motives are irrelevent to the facts you are contesting.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| And what else could possibly be occurring alongside these patterns? Would you argue that people with less educational qualifications are likely to have lower-paying jobs? That those lower-paying jobs along with modernity itself puts more stress on the individual, and that those are much more sensible explanations for the trends you witness? Or nah, education must be having a direct impact on religious tendencies? |
If you think this is true, and want to pursue it and try to prove it, go you. I don't think you'll get too far with it.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It pretty clearly does. I'm not shy about admitting that at all. The only thing in question is why it has an impact. My guess is that African-Americans are far more likely -- due to their history in our country -- to partake in a certain very destructive subculture, but I'm certainly open to other interpretations. |
Why are you open to other explains for African-Americans and their relation to violent crime, but you refuse to allow any other interpretation for the patterns in education and religious belief? |
Because the nature of religion and education make it an incredibly plausible explanation for the pattern we see. This is something I could write an entire essay about. I don't think you're truly interested in my philosophic musings on the topic, though, and to be frank writing up a full on essay for a forum discussion is excessive even for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't believe you are truly intersted in any theories I might put forward on the matter, but rather just want something to attack. I won't provide it. As I say below, it's based on the nature of religion vs the nature of education. |
| Quote: |
| Because the nature of religion and education make it an incredibly plausible explanation for the pattern we see. This is something I could write an entire essay about. I don't think you're truly interested in my philosophic musings on the topic, though, and to be frank writing up a full on essay for a forum discussion is excessive even for me. |
...well, at least you admit to having absolutely nothing to back up your claims. I, uh, I guess that means I'm done here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
