Post #133,581
1/4/04 8:52:10 PM
|
Yes indeed they do
need I pull out that website again:
[link|http://www.godandscience.org/|http://www.godandscience.org/]
It is called Intelligent Design, there is an intelligence behind evolution, the universe, and etc. The question remains, whose intelligence is it? Certainly not mine or yours.
Oh yes I do believe that God is behind evolution, the big bang, and almost everthing else. His figerprints are all over it. At least I and some others can see that.
Saying that there is definatly no God requires absolute knowledge. It is currently impossible to have absolute knowledge on such a concept. It is like saying there is no gold in China. Do you know this absolutely? Have you checked every possible area of China looking for gold? Or have you just searched few places, gave up, and said because of your findings that you found no gold in China? Just because you found no gold, doesn't mean that there is absolutly no gold in China. What if I found gold in China, would you accuse me of being a liar to prove your "fact" that you claim to have scientifically proven?
I think that the agnostics may be correct in the statement that it is impossible to know if God exists or not.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #133,651
1/5/04 11:38:12 AM
1/5/04 12:59:16 PM
|
Talk about rapidly changing your position
Your first post claimed that Creationism is where science and religion meet. Now you back off from that to claim that Intelligent Design (a much different position) is where they meet. You throw a huge website at me. And then you immediately go on to rail against people who say that there is definitely no God.
Let's take those one at a time, shall we?
You originally said that, Science and Religion meet here with Creationism. Creationism generally means something rather specific, it means the theory that God created the world exactly as outlined in the Bible, complete with The Flood, every surviving species surviving on Noah's Arc, etc just a few thousand years ago. You haven't defended that. The website that you pointed me at very specifically doesn't defend that view. They relabel it young-earth creationism and right [link|http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html|here] point out that you have to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism (science in quotes because what passes for science among young-earth creationists very definitely isn't).
Instead it defends the view of Intelligent Design. ID is the theory that evolution is broadly right, but there are gaps that can't be explained, and those gaps are filled in by God. Which gaps need filling in varies between different believers. For instance Michael Behe explicitly accepts macro-evolution as a process but sees God needed to fill in some of the steps along the way, such as abiogenesis, the evolution of eukaryotic cells, and the eye. The authors of the website that you pointed at doesn't accept basic macro-evolution.
What about the website that you pointed me at? Obviously I don't have time to review the whole thing in detail. So let me just grab one page and talk about that. How about [link|http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html|General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution]? Well first they draw a fairly artificial distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Secondly they accept micro-evolution (the actual process put forth by Darwin) but then reject that micro-evolution as a process could explain any larger transition from speciation on up.
Uh, oh. First factual mistake. That divisions between species can occur through a series of gradual changes is well-established. One of the most spectactular demonstrations are so-called [link|http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/ring_species.html|ring species]. In one place there are two species. But if you take one of them, and go from location to location you find that each interbreeds with the next until you reach the original location - at the other species! There you have what are clearly 2 species and a complete chain of intermediate forms in current existence!
We then have the classic out-of-context quote, this time directed at a 1996 article that I don't have access to. Obviously points of major change are not examples of equilibrium - had they been in equilibrium then change would not have happened. And the biologists in question were asserting their opinion that micro-evolution is not a sufficient mechanism for certain specific gaps (namely the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language), well OK, that is an opinion. Oh, right. The origin of life is indeed outside of standard mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (a fact first noted by Darwin). The emergence of eukaryotic cells (ie cells with organelles like mitochondria) is believed to have happened by the emergence of a symbiosis with one bacteria being engulfed by another. That process is indeed outside of simple Darwinian evolution. The origin of the human capacity for language, there is a point of disagreement. One biologist has trouble seeing how it could have happened through micro-evolution, others have no trouble with that, and with the sequencing of the human genome complete there is ongoing research on which genes differ between us and chimpanzees. I have confidence that in the next few decades we will have a pretty good idea which genes give us coherent speech (we already know a couple of key ones which most of us have, chimps don't, and which cause serious speech problems in people who lack them). Research continues.
Going on, they present gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium. The approach taken here is to give all of the traditional arguments that the punctuated equilibrium folks take against gradualism, and then casually dismiss punctuated equilibrium as impossible. They also provide a lack of context. For instance they discuss the amazing punctuation of the boundary of the Cretateous-Tertiary Period without mentioning the punctuation point, an asteriod hitting the Earth, wiping out most species, leaving a layer of dust around the world, and leaving a still-visible crater after over 60 million years. The destruction of an existing order created huge numbers of opportunities. The radiation out from there is quite understood.
I would comment on some of the misrepresentations that I see there (particularly of the Cambrian explosion), but I want to get to their casual dismissal of punctuated equilibrium. First of all they overstate the coincidence needed for punctuated equilibrium to happen. You do not need to isolate a population and then have a series of mutations happen. Instead you isolate a population with normal levels of genetic variability, and chance elimination of variability through inbreeding will drive that population to a somewhat different form. Normally that form won't be better than the original, and reintegration with the main population is a disaster for the isolated segment. But this kind of genetic experiment is going on all the time (and has been identified in the wild right now), and one success in 5 million years of attempts is enough to explain a punctuation.
Secondly when attempting to dismiss a theory, it is unfair to ignore evidence put forth for that theory. For instance Gould and Eldredge's original paper didn't just hypothesize the process, they actually traced a type of tribolite through 2 punctuations, in each of which they were able to locate the punctuations (one in a mine in upstate NY, the other in a mine in China IIRC) to a specific locale over a period of a few thousand years. That is, they didn't just look at a fossil record and say, "How did this sudden shift happen?" Instead they looked at a fossil record where they had detailed documentation of where and when the shifts happened, and found that not once, but twice in a row the shift happened in a small space in a small time in what apparently was an isolated population.
I could go on through that page with more examples of bias, distortion, and omission. I could do the same with the website as a whole. But I think that my point is clear. While I can see how convincing that site might be to someone who doesn't clearly know the facts involved, and who is inclined to believe what they have to say, it isn't convincing me nearly as well as you might hope.
So let me quickly brush over the final point, your railing about attempted proofs of the non-existence of God. Oddly enough I didn't attempt to prove the non-existence of God. For one thing I know better than that, I am fully aware that the existence or non-existence of God is not amenable to proof. Or, more precisely put, there are many "demonstrations" available, but each has a strong tendancy to confirm for all readers their prior belief system on the subject.
My prior belief system says that any God able to create the Universe must, a prior, be far more amazing than the Universe created. Going further, if we consider geological time to be The Eiffel Tower, all of human history is a small fleck of paint partway up the tower. The entire history of science fits on a speck of dust on the fleck of paint. And I am but an amused microbe who hears other microbes going on about how we are clearly the purpose of this whole edifice, what it all leads to, and I'm laughing to myself about the lack of perspective.
But that is my belief. I have no vested interest in anyone else (you, for instance) agreeing with me, and no way to convince you to agree with me even if I wanted to.
Cheers,
Ben
PS Next time, please pick a clearer position and stick to it. While addressing umpteen different positions may be kind of fun, it gets very tedious after a while.
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Edited by ben_tilly
Jan. 5, 2004, 12:59:16 PM EST
|
Post #133,662
1/5/04 12:01:04 PM
|
Fix your ring species link, please.
Missing a |, looks like.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #134,005
1/7/04 1:48:00 AM
|
Not really
Creationism is the theory that the universe, and everything in it was created by a Creator who used Intelligent Design to create the various things. One of which was humans, which were created in his image. The problem is that the details are quite filled in yet, and some Creationists use the book of Genesis as a reference. That is where religion comes in. What I said was that parts of the creation stories in Genesis are true, and the rest are that old "Telephone Game" that distorts things. It still doesn't change the theory of Creationism. Unless you are mistaking the book of Genesis for the theory itself, which I think you are doing.
Oh, right. The origin of life is indeed outside of standard mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (a fact first noted by Darwin).
The origin of life is not outside the theory of Creationism. We know who did it, and we just don't know how or why yet. Provide an alternative to the origin of life if you can. Random Chance just doesn't cut it. Science is unable to reproduce the same results in a controlled environment. These failings show that there was actually some intellgence that provided the origin of life and did so by Intelligent Design. Otherwise scientists could reproduce life in a lab using Random Chance. The fact that Scientists cannot sucessfully clone anything without it breaking down, aging rapidly, or dying, proves that there is copy protection in the Genetic Code. How did it get there? Why is it there? Not only is the copy protection there, it is signed by its creator by it's very design. The creator didn't want us to genetically copy species, at least not in an easy way.
So let me quickly brush over the final point, your railing about attempted proofs of the non-existence of God. Oddly enough I didn't attempt to prove the non-existence of God. For one thing I know better than that, I am fully aware that the existence or non-existence of God is not amenable to proof. Or, more precisely put, there are many "demonstrations" available, but each has a strong tendancy to confirm for all readers their prior belief system on the subject.
In order to prove or disprove the existance of God, you must define what God is. Nobody is qualified to do that. Like trying to define infinity and measure it with finite measuring devices. Nothing I can show in any evidence, in any proof, in any way shape or form will convince you, if you are a skeptic and totally against the idea and do not have an open mind. God goes beyond all logic, all physical laws, time and space itself are meaningless to such a being.
My prior belief system says that any God able to create the Universe must, a prior, be far more amazing than the Universe created. Going further, if we consider geological time to be The Eiffel Tower, all of human history is a small fleck of paint partway up the tower. The entire history of science fits on a speck of dust on the fleck of paint. And I am but an amused microbe who hears other microbes going on about how we are clearly the purpose of this whole edifice, what it all leads to, and I'm laughing to myself about the lack of perspective.
We could be all goldfish swimming in a big bowl, living in our own waste, realtively speaking. :) The whole purpose of the edifice is unknown. Life is only temporary and finite. 1000 years from now, what will it matter? Religion comes in and gives life a purpose. Suddenly the microbes are important, and find that death is not an end, but only the beginning to something different. The physical body gives way to the soul or spirit. Life continues on in the Afterlife in a different form. The edifice is replaced with something more wonderful, something much larger, no more suffering, no more death, life eternal. Then we find out that physical life as we knew it was one big test, either we pass or fail. The one who created life does the judging in the Afterlife. Hope you pass the audition. :)
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,112
1/7/04 3:11:01 PM
|
You can use whatever definition you want
But you can't expect people to understand what you mean, and you can't expect to understand others.
Let me look in a dictionary for [link|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism|creationism]. I find that creationism is Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. I also see n. the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; I see other definitions which are clearly different contexts. Looking up the word "literal" and then reading the Bible explains why I said that Creationists believe that the world is a few thousand years old, Noah's Flood happened, etc.
Now you wish to use the word Creationism to mean something else. Fine. Now that we both know what the word means when you use it, there is no confusion between us. However unless you use it like most people do, you won't understand the start of the discussion and can't expect other people to understand you.
Moving on, I'm well aware that Divine Intervention can be used to "explain" anything. And in explaining any possible result, has very little explanatory value. So yes, your theory offers a simple solution for the origin of life. And no, the origin of life is outside of what "descent with modification" can explain. Furthermore your comments on what scientists can explain demonstrates your ignorance of science. Not that I am surprised. After all how would a person who has no idea about how cloning works understand the practical difficulties of doing it? Given your willful ignorance, is there any point in discussing what is and isn't believed about how abiogenesis could work?
Lemme scan further. Oh yes. You seem to think that I'm interested in trying to prove or disprove God. Which is rather silly when I've repeatedly pointed out that I have no interest in proving or disproving God, and in fact most attempts at demonstrations only have the effect of confirming people's prior beliefs in the matter. But you've been silly for another round, so I've just pointed it out again...
And now we have your view of religion. Norm, please learn that there are your beliefs and then there are facts. They are not one and the same. Yes, I understand your belief system. I don't accept or agree with it. And lecturing me on how I'd better watch out for how I'm going to be judged in the Afterlife just brings home how completely you Don't Get That.
Norm, can you please give me something which is worth responding to? So far you aren't, and if you don't soon then I'll exit this conversation since it is going around in circles.
Regards,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #134,432
1/8/04 11:33:30 PM
|
Let us just agree to disagree then.
Your facts are not the same as the facts I know. Arguing any futher would just be useless. End of discussion.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,439
1/9/04 1:32:26 AM
|
/me chuckles while pulling hair out
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
It goes in, it must come out.Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #134,497
1/9/04 11:18:56 AM
|
Yes, we have passed the point of uselessness
Your facts are not the same as the facts I know.
And you have no interest in finding out which set of claimed facts is more accurate. I'll accept that. I have no choice, nobody else can make your brain do work that it doesn't want to do.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #133,665
1/5/04 12:23:46 PM
|
Norman...
...you wouldn't know what science was if the Science Bus ran you over.
I suggest you gracefully drop this subject, lest you look unnecessarily stupid.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #134,011
1/7/04 2:20:13 AM
|
Peter...
I must be making some sort of sense to make you want to post something like that.
Last I checked this wasn't the science forum, but it is a related topic to this thread. It is the combination of science and religion which apparently is beyond your grasp or anyone else's here.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,040
1/7/04 7:28:30 AM
|
Riiiiiight.
It's not that you're talking a load of old toss, it's that everyone else doesn't "get it".
Glad we got that cleared up.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #134,041
1/7/04 7:31:50 AM
|
Re: Riiiiiight.
Interesting idiom "a load of old toss" - translate? There's a good chap.
-drl
|
Post #134,042
1/7/04 7:34:35 AM
|
Re: Riiiiiight.
\r\n | toss | \r\n Noun. 1. Rubbish, nonsense. E.g."That play was toss, we should have gone to the cinema instead."
\r\n\t2. An act of masturbation.
\r\n\tVerb. To masturbate. | \r\n \r\n
\r\nSee [link|http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm|http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm]
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #134,048
1/7/04 8:45:33 AM
|
It is because
there is a religous element to it. So it gets rejected and not understood by those opposed to it.
I just had one relative die, and now my wife has a relative die on her side of the family. Death is so much easier for me to take when I believe in an afterlife. I can see faith in action in the faces of relatives. I have a uncle who is near death, and he found that he has to take his faith more seriously now. The look on his face, the terror of dying, not knowing when it will happen, not knowing how to manage it. I cannot begin to describe it. He found God, and he thinks it may be too late, but I told him that God forgives. I always looked up to him, he always did the ethical and moral things. Ran a Haunted House on Halloween for MD out of his basement, etc. His faith is Jewish, mine is Catholic, but we agree on the concept of God. Me, I am not afraid of dying. I fear many things, but death is not one of them. He said in the past he could not even look someone in th eyes and say he believed in God, but now he can. The doctors didn't give him good chances, but he lived past Christmas, which was his goal. He says prayers are what did it, many people prayed for him. His survival cannot be explained scientifically.
If you don't believe, that is your problem and not mine. I cannot change your mind. Nor do I want or desire to. All I ask is the right to believe in what I believe. Call it toss if you want, I know otherwise.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,094
1/7/04 12:35:46 PM
|
potential root cause is fear of death? Interesting
How much of this fear of the unknown causes your mental states?
thanx,
bill
stick a spork in it.
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #134,422
1/8/04 10:36:29 PM
|
Fear of the known
driving on highways scares me, as I could easily get into an accident and be all twisted up and messed up for life. Not die, but get so messed up that my life will suffer a great deal. I've seen the way other people drive and I've been in many accidents where I was a passinger. Even got trapped in a car and it lead to a fear of enclosed places.
Hard to say if this is unknown or known, you'd have to drive St. Louis highways to understand this fear. I've tried and been forced off into exit ramps, in other states doing that is against the traffic laws, but they do that a lot here.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,491
1/9/04 10:31:33 AM
|
so fear is the main issue
I have driven around st louis as well as in the bronx and many other places. Perhaps fear is the basis of your illness, I dont know. Not trying to belittle you, fear can be a terrible enemy or a kindly friend.
thanx,
bill
stick a spork in it.
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #134,492
1/9/04 10:40:46 AM
|
"The Gift of Fear" is an interesting book.
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440226198/102-6743024-5568945|The Gift of Fear] by Gavin de Becker at Amazon.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #134,523
1/9/04 12:45:23 PM
|
Perhaps it is part of the illness
it certainly stops me from doing certain things. The problem is me trying to get over those fears. So far I have been unable to do that, although I have tried.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,524
1/9/04 12:59:10 PM
|
Re: Perhaps it is part of the illness
What you describe is not fear, it is chickenshitness. Real fear happens when you are confronted by an actual situation that will hurt you bad. Since you don't know this, you've never experienced it. Indeed you probably build your life around avoiding it (understandable, since it is no fun).
Refusal to accept challenges is not fear, it is chickenshititude. Chickenshittitude can be overcome - fear is basic, like pleasure and love. You can face fear but you can't avoid it, and the longer you put it off, the more it will hurt when it arrives.
-drl
|
Post #134,527
1/9/04 1:08:27 PM
|
You have no idea what you are talking about
Norman was almost killed once when he almost went off a cliff with a friend who had a diabetic attack while driving.
Get your facts before spouting, Ross.
You need to back off and let people alone that you don't like, and stop picking on them... and STOP following me around in here just to make smart-assed remarks.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #134,529
1/9/04 1:13:24 PM
|
Re: You have no idea what you are talking about
I don't pick on people, and you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. I am telling Norm the truth. If he doesn't like driving, he can stay off the roads. Indeed the way he talks about it, he would be doing everyone else a favor if he did.
(FWIW, I was in a rather bad motorcycle crash. I got back on the horse because I can live with fear. Indeed I am living with it as I write this.)
-drl
|
Post #134,531
1/9/04 1:19:00 PM
|
You clearly stated...
That Norm had not been through something like that that truly put his life in danger.
Rosee wrote:>>Real fear happens when you are confronted by an actual situation that will hurt you bad. Since you don't know this, you've never experienced it.<<
I clearly stated back that he has indeed.
As for not picking on me, what was the point then of going into the Q & A thread and simply screaming? I was having a reasonable, logical conversation with people about my car and you came in there and screamed for no explainable reason.
Grow up, Ross.
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #134,535
1/9/04 1:27:04 PM
|
Re: You clearly stated...
That is not fear, that is horror - an instantaneous reaction to a bad situation. Fear is the awareness of an inevitable coming unpleasantness and the intense desire to avoid it. Courage is the ability to live with fear.
As for the screaming, well, to put it plainly, you drive me up the wall most of the time. As Jung would say, we are "shadows" of each other.
-drl
|
Post #134,537
1/9/04 1:31:13 PM
|
Well as Scott said in the Hardware forum
KNOCK IT OFF, ROSS!
Nightowl >8#
"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman
"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
|
Post #134,534
1/9/04 1:24:29 PM
|
Not to mention
me being in many car accidents. I've almost died many times, and I am lucky to have survived, or even not been hurt. The fears are not groundless, but based on real events, real experiences.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #134,536
1/9/04 1:30:20 PM
|
Re: Not to mention
Well, then stay off the roads if you're that bad a driver, or stay out of cars altogether. Simple solution no? But I would say, fear is what my quad friend in Arizona faces every day when he has to take a shit.
-drl
|
Post #134,557
1/9/04 2:31:16 PM
|
perhaps you need to take up driving in demolition derbies
I am not saying your fear is groundless, I am saying you need to learn to function in a competent manner while in a fearful state. Fear of driving is understandable. Driving in an event where the object is to crash as many people as you can while in a fearful state might assist you in learning to cope with fear and allow you to confront other parts of your life where you are fearful in a more confident manner without becoming the antinorm.
thanx,
Bill
stick a spork in it.
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #134,573
1/9/04 3:31:59 PM
|
You have a point
except that my fear is not about driving, but driving on the highway. I can drive on local roads just fine, and never had an accident while I was driving. All of my accidents happened when someone else was driving.
Getting over my fear of driving just to drive on local roads was a major step for me. Just ask Nightowl as she knew me before I drove on local roads.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #136,179
1/16/04 3:09:01 PM
|
Nah, I agree with Ross
I've been in a car crash that had a high probability of either killing me or paralyzing me. I was lucky enough to walk away with some deep cuts on my head, arms and legs requiring staples and stitches, glass in my eyes and the temporary loss of use of my left arm (about two months or so to regain nearly full strength.) I fought off passing out at the scene and had the mental wherewithal to check myself out physically to make sure I was going to be okay. I've had a few other near car accidents. I've had several bicycle crashes one a concussion that I blacked out from and later went to sleep at home with (didn't know that was a no-no) and several others that I nearly did a header into moving cars. I still drive, allow myself to be driven by others (someone else was driving in that car crash), still ride my bike, still rollerblade despite smashing my wrists during this past summer (very painful!)...
Grow a spine and some balls and just deal with things! It's amazing to see and read about people completely panicing in some situations, a lot of the time completely unjustified.
Quit whining and just deal with shit.
lister
|
