Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #15 on: 2004-05-29 12:40:10 »
The plan is to phase out titles based on number of posts, and phase out the karma system (perhaps) when the reputation system takes over. As a matter of historical note the posting-based titles and karma are built into this BBS software. The reputation system, Meridion, is my invention and was motivated by the deficiencies I saw in the other systems.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #16 on: 2004-05-29 16:57:18 »
Please, for the love of all things pink and moist, carry through with the plan to phase out titles based on the number of posts. If all of those posts were original to the poster, I’d have no problem with it. But certain people (and one in particular, whose name will go unmentioned [hint: It rhymes with “Oh, please”]) post article after article, rather than simply making a brief statement about why the article is relevant to the discussion at hand and then inserting a link to it. After all, how hard is it to copy and paste other people’s words? And, although this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, the aforementioned poster is beginning to become rather repetitive and tiresome. (But I will admit that he’s right in suggesting that a lot of us card-carrying liberals [yes, we do carry cards] are vehemently anti-Bush. I’m so anti-Bush, as a matter of fact, I shaved off all my pubic hair. Hell, I’m so anti-Bush, I snuck into my neighbor’s apartment, slipped roofies into her Jägermeister, and shaved off all her pubic hair.) Now, I realize I may seem a bit presumptuous by being so critical of a long-time member of the CoV, when I’m such a new member (and by member I mean penis). But I know I’m not the only one who’s getting a little miffed about having to slog through page after page of drivel, wasting way too much time separating the wheat from the chaff. In all fairness, however, I should point out that “J.D.,” as I’ll call him, does make a lot of good points: E.g., those who assert that the Bush administration somehow knew about 9/11 before it happened and they knowingly let it happen—and those who insist that the Nick Berg beheading was somehow faked on CNN—are a few prostitutes short of a brothel. Skepticism is a virtue, but cynicism is usually a vice. Ultraconservatives and ultraliberals are equally foolish. Moderate conservatives and moderate liberals, on the other hand, tend to be fairly sensible. I think the ancient Greeks and Romans had the right idea with their concept of the golden mean, the middle path, the via media—which are truly ancient memes . . . but memes worth remembering, nevertheless. I’ll shut up now.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #17 on: 2004-06-01 12:47:26 »
Personally, I'd like to see the karma system stay. It helps as a metric for me in rating people. Take for instance the above post. I don't want to reply to it when all I want to say is "I like it" or "I do not like it."
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #18 on: 2004-06-01 21:32:48 »
Is there any way we can keep the karma system and nix the reputation system? I, too, like the way you can just applaud or smite someone based on their posts. And, although I’ve read many of the archived posts, I still don’t feel that I know everyone well enough to make any definitive judgment as to their relative worth to the CoV. And so, to parrot what I said when I voted no on the issue of “Should ratings be public?”: “This sort of hierarchical reputation system will almost undoubtedly result in invidious comparisons and buttloads of resentment. That’s why—as a conscientious objector—I choose not to participate in it.” But, like I said, I actually like the karma system, even though my karma keeps vacillating between positive and negative, depending on who’s reading my posts. And when it comes to some people’s karma—I won’t mention any names . . . Joe Dees, for example—if reincarnation were a reality, in their next life they’d probably come back as a gonorrhea bacillus or something. And so would I.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #19 on: 2004-06-06 02:15:50 »
I mentioned a while ago about integrating karma into the reputation system, only to recieve a lack of support from pretty much anyone. As the reputation system was meant as an experiment I think it is good to keep it, but it seems that the whole idea of expanding the CoV has been lost among the drivel. If anyone has ideas about making any changes to the reputation system please post them. I've made a few suggestions about this and the mailing list in CoV - clean up plan. here:
But I know I'm not the only one who's getting a little miffed about having to slog through page after page of drivel, wasting way too much time separating the wheat from the chaff. In all fairness, however, I should point out that 'J.D.,' as I'll call him, does make a lot of good points: E.g., those who assert that the Bush administration somehow knew about 9/11 before it happened and they knowingly let it happen and those who insist that the Nick Berg beheading was somehow faked on CNN are a few prostitutes short of a brothel. Skepticism is a virtue, but cynicism is usually a vice.
The failure of the British and American security services to act on leads that might have helped prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks is starkly exposed by their investigation of Niaz Khan. Eighteen months before the attack on the Twin Towers the former curry waiter from Burnley entered an FBI office in New Jersey and told startled agents he had been trained to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. His tale of al-Qa'eda training camps equipped with mock Boeing aircraft was carefully noted by two FBI counter-terrorism experts, and filed away. Though he passed two lie detector tests, his allegations were ignored as too fantastic to be believed.
[Hermit] My conclusion: "The Bush administration somehow* knew about 9/11 before it happened and they knowingly let it happen".
...I am certified in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis by the Laboratory of Forensic Science (Corning, New York, 10 May 2002) and a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts-IABPA...CONCLUSION: Based on the investigative analysis conducted, it is the professional assessment of this investigator that the blood pattern shown in the video is NOT consistent with the cutting or breaching of the carotid artery or arteries of a person where the victim's blood pressure would be considered to be within the normal range. Based on this observation alone, this investigator questions the authenticity of the video as it was been presented for bloodstain pattern analysis.
[Hermit] For example, the assertion that the alleged "executioners" had an Israeli rifle (and possibly an Israeli machine pistol). I can confirm that the assault rifle in question does appear to be a Galil SAR. However, it could also be an R5 (a slightly heavier Galil SAR clone) manufactured by Vektor, a division of Denel (South Africa), and quite possibly supplied to Iraq by Armscor during the Iran/Iraq war as part of a package deal with the G5s (155mm artillery) supplied just prior to the Kuwait debacle. The video quality is not quite good enough to determine whether we are looking at an SAR or at an R5, but it is most definitely not an AK47. Naturally this is simply speculation based on the strange sight of a supposed "Islamic terrorist" waving an Israeli firearm around, but the point is that explanations other than conspiracy are possible. The "Uzi" is not shown well enough for useful analysis in my opinion, but here too, South Africa produced a number of Uzi variants - and on-sold the Israeli Uzis that ended up in South Africa as they were too unreliable (particularly the safety) to pass the rigorous South African field acceptance tests. So South Africa might have supplied Iraq with Uzis or Uzi clones, and probably supplied Galil SAR clones, and it is not impossible that some of these ended up in the hands of unconventional forces. At any rate, we can see that while these "unusual" weapons certainly provide grounds for asking pointed questions, the "Galil" and "Uzi" assertions are not, at least alone, sufficient to assert that some murky intelligence agency was involved.
*My suggestion and you heard it here first :-).
[Hermit] Much more damning, decapitation is a messy process. There was a video doing the rounds just prior to the Afgan imbroglio, taken clandestinely during a putatively similar execution - though legal - in Kabul, where a widow sawed through the neck of the person who murdered her husband (who was tied up with so much rope that he looked like the classic cartoon character tied to a railway line). I was fairly surprised that she kept going while receiving a blood shower. In otherwords, I would agree with the "bloodstain analyst" above (as would most any medically trained person) and would have anticipated seeing carotid blood spurting a distance of 5m to 10m (that's 15' to 30' for the metric illiterates among us) for so long as heart activity continued and blood remained in the vessels (usually around 30 seconds to unconsciousness and 2 minutes to cessation of heart activity) during the execution. This certainly did not happen.
[Hermit] Another issue arises because I breed ducks and enjoy eating them when I get the chance. Which means that I have to kill them. I kill them by holding them in a killing cone which slips over the body with the head emerging from the tip and then scramble their brains with a fine pointed scalpel inserted through the roof of the mouth - as this is much less traumatic for everyone involved - and very much less messy - than decapitation. Up to the time when I kill the bird, it is sitting relaxed and calm. After the brain is undoubtedly no longer functional, the body suddenly seems to "remember" how strong it is and tries to escape. The thrashing that ensues is so powerful that if I tried to restrain the bird manually at this point, I would probably not be able to, and the flesh would be bruised. Now consider that the ducks weigh around 5% of that of a human (i.e. under 10lbs even before dressing). While there are ways to kill people "tidily" and minimize thrashing, decapitation is not one of them. We are larger, and presumably stronger than ducks - and just like ducks, human torsos also tend to thrash around violently after decapitation. As Fernand Meyssonnier, a French executioner who participated in over 200 decapitations put it in "Paroles de Bourreau", "when a person is dying, he has tremendous strength because he no longer feels pain." Did it look to you as if there was thrashing around or that "tremendous strength" was needed? I saw as much sign of that as I saw spurting blood.
[Hermit] My conclusion: Whatever the video shows, it does not show the 'execution' of a human with a pumping heart. I suggest that that classes as "faked". The real question then, is why the video was made, how, and by who. Not, I would guess, by CNN. CNN is so good at creating false impressions (e.g. the cheering "crowds" as Saddam's statue was pulled down) that I'm sure that the technical flaws in the Berg video - e.g. the visible edit points and the inconsistent clocks - would not be there if CNN had been involved. So your assertion is partially wrong, but "the Nick Berg beheading was somehow faked" seems to me to be true.
[Hermit] Who probably could organise a fuck in a whorehouse - even during a pussy-scarcity.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Of course there are going to be as many tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about who knew what when about 9/11, and about the Nick Berg decapitation, as there were about Waco and Ruby Ridge - just by different people, with opposite political axes to grind. I guess it all depends upon whose ox is gored - or whose Gore was axed ;~) (and yes, I voted for him). I only wish to note that the fellow who came forward about 9/11 (and I was the first one to post that piece here) did so during Clinton's watch - and not only was it not followed up then, but there is no record that any concerns that might have been born of it were communicated to the subsequently incoming Dubya administration. Just because there is the possibility that the death of Nick Berg did not occur during the beheading does not mean that the pictured Islamofascists who beheaded him did not kill him earlier (but after he recorded his beginning statement), although political partisans would like to blame the event, as well as global warming, the deterioration of the ozone layer and Smarty Jones' Belmont Stakes defeat, upon the hated Dubya administration. Considering the problem they had with the Italian Quatrocelli, who tried to pull his hood off while screaming, "Now I'll show you how an Italian Dies!", a video that was not released - Al Jazeera said because it was too brutal, but considering what they HAVE released, much more likely because it failed to communicate the desired message, it is entirely possible that they forfended such a propagandistically counterproductive display by killing him earlier, so his death could provide the 'proper' scene of the supine and weak Jewish-American infidel being righteously beheaded, without struggle, by the servants of Holy Muslim Jihad. After all, the message read offered the video as a lesson in how others should do the same.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #22 on: 2004-06-06 14:40:33 »
No offense, Hermit, but I’m mostly in agreement with Señor Dees on this particular issue. You make some good points, of course, but I’m still about 90% certain that the beheading was legit—though not necessarily carried out while he was alive. And as to the 9/11 issue, I’m certainly not saying that Bush couldn’t have done more to prevent 9/11, nor am I saying the FBI couldn’t have been a bit more efficient—but I am saying that the Bush administration did not knowingly let it happen. They may have had evidence to suggest something like it might happen, but since there had never been a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil before, they probably had some sort of illusion of invulnerability. And there’s plenty of blame to go around with the former administration as well as the current one. But most of it results from our being able to put all the pieces together with the benefit of hindsight. I think part of the problem is that people who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god—as does our Cheerleader in Chief—tend to believe that their god would never allow something as tragic as 9/11 to happen (especially to a country of such devout and non-hypocritical Christians). Rush Limbaugh, for example, once thoroughly refuted global warming with the completely cogent argument that the god he believes in would never allow something like that to happen. That’s one of the worst side effects of being infected with Christianity: If you know your god is going to take care of everything, then you really don’t have to do anything.
P.S. I’m still ambivalent about that whole Meridion thing. Though I remain a conscientious objector—for now—having read a bit more about it, I may yet change my mind. But, being part Cherokee, I still have some reservations.
There is also the matter of the Gorelick action. She was Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, and sent out a departmental memo that established a 'wall of separation' between domestic and international agencies, that is, between criminal investigators (for instance, the FBI) and intelligence agents (for instance, the CIA) that prevented and forbade the interdepartmental information-sharing that would have made it more possible that the pre-9/11 dots could have been connected. Some people have asserted that there was an ulterior motive behind the creation and dissemination of the memo; to impede investigation into the China campaign donation bribery scandal that had begun to appear as if it would furnish more reasonable grounds for impeachment than the phony and politically pursued Whitewater investigations and the pruriently fascinating Monicagate flap.
Gorelick's Memo Impeded Probe of Clinton's China Scandal Scott Wheeler, CNSNews.com Monday, April 26, 2004 A senior U.S. government official has told CNSNews.com that the 1995 memo written by former Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, an issue in the 9/11 commission's investigation of U.S. intelligence failures, also created "a roadblock" to the probe of the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign's fund-raising scandal. The memo's relevance in the investigation of the fund-raising scandal has received scant attention in the media, but four sources, including the government official, have explained and corroborated details of the connection for CNSNews.com.
CNSNews.com's sources question whether the guidelines purportedly put in place by Gorelick in 1995 for Justice Department investigations were actually intended to shield President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and top Democrat campaign fund raisers from the subsequent congressional investigations of the illegal money-raising activities.
However, there appears to be no evidence at this point that the Gorelick memo was written for that express purpose.
Because the memo created a barrier for U.S. intelligence agencies to share information with the FBI, one of its unintended consequences might have been to prevent the FBI from receiving the necessary intelligence to stop the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the worst in American history.
Memo's Link to Money-Raising Scandal
The fund-raising investigation involved the Clinton campaign's alleged acceptance of donations from operatives working for the People's Republic of China as well as other foreign sources. But the Gorelick memo of 1995 prevented intelligence collected by U.S. agents overseas from being used in domestic criminal investigations.
Peter M. Leitner, a longtime employee at the Department of Defense and currently a senior strategic trade adviser at DoD, was responsible at one point for deciding whether to issue a license to a Chinese corporation seeking to buy a McDonnell Douglas machine tools factory.
At the same time, according to congressional investigations of the fund-raising controversy, the Clinton campaign was receiving millions of dollars in donations from Chinese businessmen.
Leitner told CNSNews.com that he repeatedly saw investigations that would have led directly to foreign agents stymied by the wall erected by Gorelick in her 1995 memo.
"The Gorelick memo guidelines created a firewall that protected the [Clinton] administration" from the Justice Department's investigation into foreign campaign donations, Leitner said.
Gorelick's previously classified memo became public when Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to defend the Bush administration in recent testimony before the commission studying the intelligence breakdowns in the months leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Among those listening to Ashcroft's testimony about the memo he had just released was Gorelick, herself a member of the 9/11 commission.
"The simple fact of September 11th is this," Ashcroft told the commission. "We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls."
Another DoD official, who requested anonymity, explained in an interview with CNSNews.com that the People's Liberation Army "used front companies to buy U.S. defense high technology and influence in the U.S. government." In many cases, the source said, "the operatives were dealing directly with the White House."
That type of intelligence might have been used in the prosecution of high-profile figures such as former Commerce Department official and Democratic National Committee fund raiser John Huang, as well as longtime Clinton associate Charles Yah Lin Trie, and ultimately might have led directly to Clinton and Gore, sources said.
Bill, Al and Hillary Too
According to congressional investigations, Huang and Trie maintained close relationships with Beijing after Clinton was elected in 1992 and especially as they became major fund raisers for Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign and the legal defense trust fund established for the president and first lady Hillary Clinton to fend off charges associated with the Whitewater controversy.
"It was a classic spy network, nothing exotic about it," Leitner told CNSNews.com. "It included compromised public officials paid off with illegal campaign contributions." But Leitner said it was frustrating to see Huang and Trie eventually plea-bargain "for petty offenses instead of being investigated for espionage."
Leitner testified five times before congressional committees attempting to get to the bottom of what ultimately became known as the China/DNC fund-raising scandal. The Clinton administration Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Janet Reno, also conducted an investigation, even though many people accused the department of having a conflict of interest.
Chinese Weapons Development and Smuggling
Leitner said one of the most important investigations hindered by the Gorelick memo involved a Chinese state-owned corporation's activities after it had purchased a McDonnell Douglas high-tech machine tools factory in Columbus, Ohio.
The factory, known as Plant 85, had previously been used to manufacture the bodies of U.S. Air Force C-17 strategic transport planes and MX intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In 1994, the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corp. (CATIC) offered to buy Plant 85 from the financially troubled McDonnell Douglass Corporation and relocate it to China where CATIC officials said it would become a civilian aircraft-production facility, according to court documents.
The sale required a government export license, which Leitner was in charge of either approving or denying. Leitner denied the license, arguing that once the machine tools from Plant 85 were exported to the People's Republic of China, they would be used to produce missiles for China's People's Liberation Army as well as nations unfriendly to the United States.
Leitner was eventually overruled, but according to court documents, within months of the plant being exported to China, U.S. officials learned that the sensitive machine tools had been diverted to a Chinese factory manufacturing Silkworm missiles.
Leitner told CNSNews.com that he informed the federal prosecutor in the case that the CATIC license was approved over his objections because of "pressure from Vice President Gore." That testimony, however, was never heard in court.
Reno Again
A criminal investigation was launched in 1995, but Reno resisted calls from congressional Republicans to appoint an independent counsel in the case. Instead, she named career prosecutor Charles LaBella to head up the Justice Department's own task force investigating Clinton and the sources of the foreign contributions.
LaBella acknowledged that the wall established by Gorelick was "cumbersome" to the investigation but that he was ultimately able to work around it.
"Clearly there was a line between the criminal and the counter-intelligence side," he said. LaBella added that one of the Senate committees was frustrated because "briefings from intelligence didn't match up with the criminal investigations."
After LaBella's work was completed, he recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor, an idea Reno again rejected. In the end, indicted suspects in the investigation, including CATIC and McDonnell Douglas, were able to plea bargain for lesser offenses. The plea bargains eliminated the need for Leitner to testify about the alleged "pressure" exercised by Gore.
In another case that spanned the mid 1990s, U.S. Customs ran a sting operation against a Chinese-owned company known as Poly Technologies. The company was attempting to smuggle thousands of AK-47 automatic rifles into the U.S.
Customs agents posed as buyers for the illegal weapons and the undercover operation eventually led to the indictment of five Chinese nationals. Senior Customs Field Agent Michael Goldsmith told CNSNews.com that "there is absolutely no doubt that Gorelick's memo "made things tighter and tighter" in "not having critical data available and not being able to use it."
"Operation Dragonfire," the name of the sting operation, ended with the indicted suspects pleading guilty to less serious weapons charges.
Gorelick's Alleged Conflict of Interest
Gorelick, as a member of the 9/11 commission, is fighting the perception that she has a conflict of interest because the lack of intelligence cooperation between the FBI and the intelligence-gathering agencies has been widely cited as the reason for the U.S. government's inability to stop the attacks of Sept. 11.
In his April 13 testimony before the commission, Ashcroft said the wall was "the single greatest structural cause for Sept. 11. Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11th, government was blinded by this wall," Ashcroft told the commission.
Leitner went a step further. "What is disturbing is that that memo served to protect the administration from exposure in its dealings with the PRC and the unfortunate consequence may be the death of 3,000 Americans."
Spokesmen for Gorelick and the commission did not respond to numerous requests from CNSNews.com for comment on this story.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #24 on: 2004-06-06 21:19:19 »
Hermit, LenKen, Joe, can we stay on the topic of reputation systems, please? The whole difference between a messageboard and an e-mail list is that I can choose which conversations to filter out. I do not care about your war argument, so please do not have it in this teeny tiny area that's supposed to be devoted to something I do care about. This is how messageboards are used. Thank you.
He believed in a door. The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.
I did not initiate political posting here; I only posted here - twice - in response to the political posts of others. I will only be too happy to refrain from further political posting here, if others will observe the same prohibition.
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #26 on: 2004-06-06 23:53:10 »
Perdóneme, muchacho.
After looking back a bit in these Reputation Notes (at least, what was initially intended as such), I realize that I was the one who first mentioned the war on this message board in a rather untimely digression, so I should be the one who apologizes. And I do. After all, I too am interested in the discussion of reputation notes, and I too am growing weary of all this war talk (because, no matter how much we blather on about it, we’re probably all going to believe whatever we believed when we first started arguing, anyway). And, yes, I see the irony in posting a post to say I will refrain from posting any further posts on this particular message board—unless of course they’re germane to the subject at hand. But what’s a girl to do?
Re:Reputation Notes
« Reply #27 on: 2004-06-26 01:38:03 »
Giddy-up! Now that I’m a member of Meridion, I’m no longer a neophyte. I have to admit, the word initiate has a much better ring to it than does neophyte. Although neophyte is a cool word, its connotations aren’t quite as positive as they could be; after all, The New Oxford American Dictionary defines neophyte as “a person who is new to a subject, skill, or belief; a new convert to a religion; a snot-nosed schweinehund and a punk-ass bitch.” And, as it turns out, the reputation system is nowhere near as bad as I had originally thought. But, as I mentioned before, I really didn’t have a problem with Meridion per se—I just didn’t think I had read enough posts from enough Virions to accurately and fairly judge their worth to the CoV. But it only took a little over an hour to check out at least the last ten posts of everyone whose posts I had previously missed. (For what it’s worth, I think it might be prudent to have some sort of probationary period in which someone who’s new to the CoV must first spend some time—say, thirty days—reading people’s posts and browsing the archives before being able to rate others . . . though this proposed “probationary” period should probably be called something other than a probationary period, if only because of the word’s pejoritive connotations. Maybe we could instead use some value-neutral word—like hazing.) I must say, I was somewhat surprised to see that some of the Virions listed in Meridion had never made a single post. So my only option was to give them a five; I have nothing against lurkers, of course, but if I’ve never read anything they’ve written, I know nothing about them, so I have no criterion on which to judge them. Some Virions may think I was a bit too generous with my ratings, but I tried to be as precise as possible. And since some other Virions were undoubtedly a little stingy with their ratings, it sort of balances things out. That’s the nice thing about this kind of ratings system: The greater the number of raters, the better the ratings average out. Thoth—the Ancient Egyptian god of justice, wisdom, writing, and personal computers—must be smiling in his tomb. And since I’ve apparently come down with a nasty case of logorrhea, I might as well also mention that I disagree with some people’s assessment of the Meridion ratings system as a game, unless they’re merely using the word game in its most general sense: a goal-directed, rule-bound activity. I, for one, refuse to use any kind of strategy, unless honest assessment of (what I judge to be) one’s worth to the CoV—regardless of his or her political orientation or any other irrelevant factor—is considered a strategy. Now, I’m sure some may even think I’m just some sly bastard who’s trying to convince you that he’s not playing a game when that very statement is just a ploy, a part of his diabolical game strategy. But, I assure you, I’m not one of those Kennedys. And that’s one of the reasons why I want all ratings to be public, why I want everyone to know how everyone is rating everyone else: When people can remain anonymous, there’s no accountability, so they can create all sorts of mischief; on the other hand, accountability tends to give rise to fairness—and fairness is justice.
BTW: I may very well have been blackmailed into joining Meridion. I know correlation does not imply causation, but this has to be more than mere coincidence: I first started talking smack about the reputation system on June 29th—and that very night, someone surreptitiously snuck into my apartment and snipped off my left testicle; then, the very next night, someone snuck in and snipped off my right testicle. (As for potential suspects, I’m not naming any names, but there just so happens to be a certain Hermitologist who also lives in Iowa. Coincidence? Perhaps.) Needless to say, I’m guarding my middle testicle assiduously.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
