Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
    Just wondering, how many posters here have had a peer reviewed article published?

    How many of us are published at all?
    About any subject or just this one? I haven't had any published about evolution or religion but I have had over 200 articles published and I have written 17 books. All were peer reviewed..... Many are still selling 25 years after being originally published. What does that have to do with anything?

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
      About any subject or just this one? I haven't had any published about evolution or religion but I have had over 200 articles published and I have written 17 books. All were peer reviewed..... Many are still selling 25 years after being originally published. What does that have to do with anything?
      Where does one find these books? What are they about? What titles?

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Where does one find these books? What are they about? What titles?
        They are all about a card game. They are available online and at booksellers at tournaments for this game. The articles appeared in their National Bulletin and other magazines around the world. I want to keep my identity to myself. But, if you send me a personal message, I will tell you what you want to know as long as you promise to keep it to yourself. You are probably the only poster here I would do that with.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
          Just wondering, how many posters here have had a peer reviewed article published?

          How many of us are published at all?
          I've published many peer-reviewed research papers and have also published a couple of invited reviews on research topics, which are not peer-reviewed. The difference is that an invited review discusses a field of work and doesn't describe any new data or experiments. Thus nobody has to go over experimental results to judge whether or not they are valid or done properly, since none are there.

          Perhaps the most high-impact paper I have been involved with was just accepted into the journal Science Translational Medicine, to be published in the upcoming June 8 2013 issue. Most of my publications are in the journals Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters and The Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

          I'd rather remain anonymous overall, but if someone I trust and have known on here for a long time sends me a PM (like Geezer, Hicks, Will, etc.) I will send a link to my profile and they can verify this.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-28-2013, 08:46 AM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Darwin Zealot’s Reign of Terror

            For those who don't click the link, it's a brief article detailing the rabid responses, mainly via Twitter, to the decision to remove Darwin from the British 10 pound note in 2017, replacing him with Jane Austen. The responses were absolutely vile, and were coming in at (allegedly) around one per minute at the peak of the onslaught.

            I'm not sure whether to laugh at the absurdity, or shriek in horror at the derangement. Either way, the emotional investment a certain class of people have in Darwin and his idea is blatantly obvious.

            It's a religion, folks.
            Last edited by Lance George; 08-18-2013, 02:14 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              I only asked about publications as a nosey busybody. Just curious. In 40 years of "research" I had 2 papers published in the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics. My last few attempts at publication were disallowed by our legal dept. as being proprietary in nature. My last attempt involved identification and quantitation of a certain hormone...yada yada. It was disallowed but my boss was allowed to take my work....retitle it and present it as a poster presentation in San Francisco six months later. I rec'd no credit for the work he presented and so I quit trying (last I heard he was a Division Director).

              BTW...all of the work he presented I had completed before he joined the company and I was asked to train him.
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                I was looking over this thread, and was disappointed. Kstat and cdash said it best,

                I think you can have a discussion contained to the origins of earth and life on earth without getting into the existence or acts of god. There are a mountain of facts to go on. If you tried to stretch it past that to the start of the universe itself, however, then it becomes unavoidable. As CDash said, ultimately "where did that come from" is a question with infinite answers.
                And this post is why America is still so behind on Science Education compared to modern countries:

                Originally posted by BearBugs View Post
                And in response to those whom say that the bible "can not be the word of God" or is "heresy" I say to you, all of scientology has no proof. While the Bible has much proof. How about the prophecies written hundreds to thousands of years before the events happened? How about the proof that Jesus Christ did indeed live? How about the Ark of the Covenant that is hidden somewhere in the middle east? There is so much proof that the bible was indeed written with the inspiration of the most high God and it's sad that so many people search for the truth when God is standing right beside you calling your name.
                Come on.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  America is so far behind in science and math because even the brightest hs students today refuse to do homework. If it can't be done during class they won't do it.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    There's only one archaic book of myths being taught as valid science in the modern classroom, and that's On the Origin of Species. If we want to place the blame for America's plummeting scientific literacy rates anywhere, it should be there.

                    Sadly, we have scientists and students alike who are ignorant of, or even hostile to, 21st-century biology, including people in this thread, because it clearly disproves the ideas propagated throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. That's no way for science to progress. What's even sadder is these people are trying to keep critical thinking out of the science classroom in an attempt at keeping the next generation of scientists -- today's students -- equally ignorant of, and hostile to, modern biology. These people, not the Biblical literalists, are the true threats to science.


                    *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, if you prefer the full, blatantly racist title.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      ^what's the hip thing to say instead of "cool story, bro" nowadays?

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                        The Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. So in Hebrew the context gives meaning to the word. In this case the context does not support the conclusion that each creative period was a 24 hour day.


                        The Bible doesn’t say how long each creative day was, however there are things we can deduce that logically indicate the creative days were longer than 24 hours.


                        The first example is the first words of the Bible which say, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ The Bible doesn’t say how long it took God to do this, however, science says the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. So God had apparently been creating for eons before turning to an earth which verse 2 says ‘was formless and waste.”’


                        The point? Do you think during all these billions of years God was holding himself to 24 hour work periods? That's totally unlikely, so why think so just because on the first creative day God created a 24 hour time period for the earth? By insisting a 24 hour time period is what was meant by the word day, you are actually holding God to a time period he created for man's use, not his own.


                        Another example found in Genesis the 2nd chapter. Before Eve’s creation the Bible says that God began bringing to Adam all the creatures he had formed and let the man decide on a name for each one. The point I want to draw attention to is that when God brought Eve to meet him, Adam said,“This is 'at last' bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman, Because from man this one was taken.”


                        Adam’s words, ‘at last’ apparently indicates that he had waited for some time to receive his counterpart of the opposite sex.


                        The account further shows Adam didn’t just arbitrarily call Eve ‘woman,’ we know he reasoned on it because he tells us why he settled on that name, “because from man this one was taken.”


                        This means he likely had a reason for giving all living things their names too. For example he probably said something like, ‘this one will be called a dog, for such and such reason.”


                        All this indicates it’s very unlikely Adam did this in one day. Remember too, Adam wouldn’t have had a full 24 hour day to name everything. For example, you would have to subtract his sleeping hours and other daily requirments.


                        Another point, the Bible says at the end of all the creative days, ‘And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day, a second day, a third day, etc. Chapter one of Genesis ends with the words, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.”

                        However, nowhere in the Bible do you find a closure for the 7th day, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a seventh day.”


                        Genesis the second chapter starts with these words, “Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their completion. 2 And by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made, and he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. 3 And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.


                        Did you notice what it says about God on the 7th day? It says, “he has been resting from all his (creative) work,” indicating the 7th day was still ongoing when Moses wrote Genesis. Moses wrote the Genesis account some 1,500 years after creation.


                        There’s more evidence to indicate God’s rest day is still ongoing. Consider Jesus’ words to opposers who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath, which they construed as a form of work. Instead of disputing whether it was work or not Jesus said, “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” (John 5:16, 17)


                        What was the point of Jesus words? Jesus was being accused of working on the Sabbath. His reply: “My Father has kept working” answered that charge. In effect, Jesus was saying since my Father has kept working during his millenniums-long Sabbath, (The 7th day) it is quite permissible for me to keep working, even on the Sabbath.’ Thus, Jesus implied that as regards the earth, God’s great Sabbath day of rest, the seventh day, had not ended in his day.


                        There’s more, but I think it’s already clear that rather than the earth being created in 24 hour time periods, the days are most likely much longer.


                        A thought. If someone still believes God created the earth in 24 hour time periods, did he just work in the day time, or did he work at night too?
                        Story of Genesis that appears in the Bible that you all have been quoting... Its actually a blend of 2 different popular creation stories! With 2 different references to God's name. Eloheim and Yahweh. Come on Moses! Judaism has a long history of being polytheistic. I do not understand why so many put so much faith and credence into these stories as some sort of actual record of the human race when all throughout history they were influenced by the political leanings of Kings and the religious oligarchies of their times. And to think some of you are basing your scientific arguments on such stories? I mean seriously Kings actually forced Monotheism on the Jewish world and then the next King brought back polytheism and it went back and forth like this for hundreds of years at a time. The story of Genesis was being changed and added to 700 years after Moses death. So much about the world changes in 700 years. Just think about the various religions that came before yours. Why would you think your theism was any more accurate than those that came before? Because some emperor or King declared it was? LOL.

                        I think its like the ultimate catch 22 for religious beliefs as fact. Everyone ignores the Geo-political happenings of the time and how they changed the very nature of the religion. Heck modern day Judaism and Christianity practically owes its existence to the Persians. People act like these religious texts and teachings existed in a vacuum, and always have.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          I take it you put no credence to oral tradition.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                            I take it you put no credence to oral tradition.
                            My apologies in advance, but ..............

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              A leading creationist, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham, comes clean:

                              The science behind evolution is sound; Creationism and intelligent design have nothing to do with science, but we should believe some form of it/them anyway, since the Bible seems to say we should.

                              http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08...-anyway-video/
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                A leading creationist, Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham, comes clean:

                                The science behind evolution is sound; Creationism and intelligent design have nothing to do with science, but we should believe some form of it/them anyway, since the Bible seems to say we should.

                                http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08...-anyway-video/
                                Ah, yes, the I.D. = Biblical creationism lie. Funny, I'm an ardent defender of I.D., yet am areligious and certainly not a Biblical creationist. Apparently, either I've been led astray, or somebody on the anti-I.D. side is telling fibs.

                                Spoiler: It's the latter.

                                The reality is, the arguments and evidence for I.D. cannot be defeated on their own merit, so those who argue against it must do so through deception. By conflating I.D. with Biblical creationism, they can create the illusion that they've refuted I.D. by refuting Biblical creationist ideas; the six-thousand-year-old Earth, or by showing minor change in a species (which, funnily enough, creationists don't even argue against). Furthermore, by conflating I.D. and Biblical creationists, they can paint I.D. proponents as religious fanatics fighting science. In reality, Darwinists are the true religious fanatics (see the lunacy regarding removing Darwin from the pound in my post above), and it's I.D. proponents who are arguing with 21st-century science.

                                By the way, at no point in either the article or the video the article's based on did Ken Ham mention I.D. That's an intentional false attribution (read: a sleazy lie) on Slick's part.

                                Also, the article is full of dishonesty, shockingly enough. For one thing, the bills that have been introduced in Tennessee and Louisiana promote academic freedom, not creationism. That is, they allow teachers to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses for evolution without fear of legal repercussions, and they explicitly and clearly forbid the promotion of religion. What Darwinists have done is made it so that discussing any weaknesses with evolution is synonymous with teaching Biblical creationism, which they then use legal chicanery to silence. It's a nice little setup, isn't? "You can only say GOOD things about my beliefs. Pointing out its decencies is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Get the ACLU on the phone!" It's a clever little scheme to protect their beliefs from critical thinking and to continue to make sure students are indoctrinated with their beliefs, isn't it?

                                It's sad that science education has gotten to the point where critical thinking in the classroom can bring about lawsuits, but then, these are the same people who want to rape and murder a woman because she was a part of removing Charles Darwin from the 10-pound note. I think it's safe to say we're not dealing with sane, civilized people here, but religious (atheistic abiogenesis-Darwinism) nuts.

                                It's even more sad to think that Slick is one of them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X