Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

But I might still be correct that Darwin was wrong about everything. As other posters here have also shown that Darwin might be wrong about everything. Whether you call it "punctuated equilibrium" or "speciation at bottlenecks" it's all just words that are used to try to model reality.

I don't understand all of science so why would anyone expect to understand? There are an infinite number of ways to skin a cat. And there could be an infinite number of sciences. I believe I know of two.

Based on the performance I have seen on this thread, you will just go right back to repeating what you have been claiming and repeating as if it is verified fact for over 200 pages. You will ignore anything posted in response to you as if it isn't there. As long as someone will pay attention to you, I think you will just continue on in the same ruts you have been.

I cannot see any value to further consideration of what is only a belief system that offers no answers and ignores questions.

I do wonder what you did in life before you succumbed to all of this, but it really doesn't matter and adds no further useful information.

Trying to have a rational discussion with you under the expectation of a dialogue is pointless. You just roll on in the ruts.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if I am wrong then the sciences affected most dramatically can be rebuilt almost immediately on a more solid foundation.

If you are wrong, science needs no rebuilding.

The problem would seem to be that reductionistic science is reaching its limitations as a tool to uncover the logic of reality.

Science is the process of discovering how the world evolved and how it works today. It is showing no signs of slowing there. The nineteenth century was characterized by evolution, advances in communication (telegraph and telephone), electric light, X-rays and anesthesia, photography, and thermodynamics (steam and combustion engines). The twentieth century was characterized by quantum and relativity theory, ad this is the century of dark matter and dark energy.

This is not extremely apparent yet because technological progress which lags theory by decades has not even slowed yet.

I'd say it's the other way around. The Hubble Space Telescope led to the two discoveries I just mentioned last. The telescope opened up a new world, especially once spectography was added to teleoscopy, as did the microscope, first using light, then electrons.

Most people I talk to face to face do understand. Certainly I hardly get widespread agreement but I am generally understood. I believe this is because they'll challenge me and ask questions. I don't get that much on-line.

I hope that's the case. But you do get a lot of questions here that go unanswered.

I define ancient science as "Observation > Logic" where logic is a metaphysical language arising from the wiring of the brain.

Here's part of our communications problem. I don't know what that means. I can't even read it. Does it read and mean observation is greater than logic? Does it read and mean observation precedes logic? At the top of this page, we see "Forums > Religious Topics > Religious Debates > Science and Religion" Here, the symbol seems to mean subsumes or is a superset of.

I understand that inductive reasoning can result in individual and human progress but it is very susceptible to being nonsense instead.

Yes, some people are poor at it.

To each his own. I always prefer deductive reasoning though induction is a very handy way to play around with models.

They go together. The induction's no use if not followed by deduction. When I say that a correct idea is one that allows one to make accurate predictions of the outcomes of situations, I could also say that a correct induction is one that allows one to make accurate deductions in specific situations.

I might still be correct that Darwin was wrong about everything.

If Darwin was wrong about everything, then superhuman extraterrestrial intelligent designers have visited the earth and deceived him and us.

Whether you call it "punctuated equilibrium" or "speciation at bottlenecks" it's all just words that are used to try to model reality.

If you consider those synonyms, then you did yourself a disservice using the second one. Try Googling it. I recommend that you use standard language instead of your custom terms, which aren't clearly defined anywhere. That habit guarantees to cause a loss of meaning between what's in your head when you choose those words and what ends up in the heads of those hearing or reading them. You refer to the limitations of communicating using language, but what could limit communication more than the loss of fidelity in the copy that occurs using that tactic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have "no" expertise in biology or Egyptology.

Really? I hadn't noticed that at all!!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Believers rarely if ever want to understand ANYTHING that flies in the face of doctrine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We each get to define every single word we use.

You are such a genius.

BTW: I define the word "genius" very differently from how you likely do.

 

[cladking]

You will ignore anything posted in response to you as if it isn't there.

I haven't even talked much about evidence in many pages here. This is because I can't even get a response to the simplest observation that is confirmed by every experiment in every field of science ever performed; All observed change in life is sudden. Why type out page after page of evidence and logic when the response is "no it isn't"? This, or it will be word games, ad hominins, or tactics.

Why not address this simple observation right now?

I don't want references to interpretations of the fossil record. I want evidence of an actual gradual change in a significant species that can't be interpreted as mere adaptation. You can't do it because there in no niche that lasted long enough to create speciation.

 

[cladking]

If you are wrong, science needs no rebuilding.

I doubt this is true. Right or wrong science is still reductionistic and interpretative.

I define ancient science as "Observation > Logic" where logic is a metaphysical language arising from the wiring of the brain.

Any metaphysician can write out a long explanation of how or why science works. The best explanation was written by E A Burtt back in the 1920's before science ground to a halt;

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Burtt,_The_Metaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

I am attempting not to write a book but rather to sum up the nature of three types of science in two words each. This is to highlight their chief differences. Ancient science was "Observation > Logic": First one uses scientific observation and then derives theory through not experiment but rather through logic. This WORKS only because their brains were logical and Ancient Language was a logical operating system. It was a metaphysical language that led users to see all of reality at once rather than tiny little bits at a time. But they saw only what they knew and we see only what we believe. Just as science opens our eyes through changing our beliefs (one funeral at a time) ancient science opened their eyes by allowing the direct experience of more and more reality.

Our science starts with Observation and from this (and the manipulation of logic, knowledge and belief) experiment is invented. All theory in our science MUST derive from experiment and NO experiment or observation supports a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. Everything Darwin believed is both wrong and highly outdated. It is superseded by new knowledge.

 

[cladking]

I am attempting not to write a book but rather to sum up the nature of three types of science in two words each. This is to highlight their chief differences. Ancient science was "Observation > Logic": First one uses scientific observation and then derives theory through not experiment but rather through logic. This WORKS only because their brains were logical and Ancient Language was a logical operating system. It was a metaphysical language that led users to see all of reality at once rather than tiny little bits at a time. But they saw only what they knew and we see only what we believe. Just as science opens our eyes through changing our beliefs (one funeral at a time) ancient science opened their eyes by allowing the direct experience of more and more reality.

As proof of this termites invented agriculture and air conditioned cities. Obviously they employed no experimental science. I am telling you that there is no such thing as intelligence as we define it and that every species has its own metaphysical language that it uses to communicate new science from individual to individual. This is just like the pyramid builders who were a force of nature.

Obviously the species mustta changed. I am proposing when, why, how, where, and for what causes. Science changed, math changed, language changed, and history was lost. This is impossible for people to remember because history has become a sort of chinese telephone. If you look back on what is known and written then the most logical explanation was that the "tower of babel" was actually an event rather than a building collapse and this event marked the official change from Ancient Language to the many pidgin languages. This was utterly catastrophic to the entire established order and caused massive mayhem. For every practical purpose it was a speciation event. Our species had been led, operated, and organized by logic and knowledge and now it is led by the guy with the better hair style.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can't even get a response to the simplest observation that is confirmed by every experiment in every field of science ever performed; All observed change in life is sudden.

You have gotten several responses to that, all the same - rejection of the claim. Unless you have some private understanding for your words there, they are incorrect and easily shown to be. Furthermore, you don't defend them, you just claim them. And one counterexample falsifies them. Take your pick. The advent of eukaryotes? That occurred over eons. The advent of multicellular animal like? Same answer. It's appearance on dry land? That change also occurred over multiple generations. How long did it take for eyes and flagella to evolve into their modern forms?

Why type out page after page of evidence and logic when the response is "no it isn't"? This, or it will be word games, ad hominins, or tactics.

If you had an evidenced argument, it needn't be pages and pages. A few sentences will suffice if they comprise a sound argument, which is what is lacking from your claims. But if you had such an argument, your motivation for posting it might be to change the minds of critical thinkers, knowing that nothing less will have any impact on their belief set.

The faithful in the other threads often bemoan the same thing - they just can't get an idea past a critical thinker. I just saw such a comment: "I haven't helped any. I was trying to help. Sorry. See [RF user's] response. It's useless before it began, anyway." Yes, his approach was useless because he tried to change minds with unevidenced opinions and flawed arguments, but he should know that that is useless with that demographic every time. And they get frustrated and angry at it, which is when they scoffingly wheel out words like scientism and materialistic.

I want evidence of an actual gradual change in a significant species that can't be interpreted as mere adaptation. You can't do it because there in no niche that lasted long enough to create speciation.

That's a statement that contradicts observation. Are you familiar with ring species? They falsify your claim above.

Right or wrong science is still reductionistic

Not exclusively. The difference between quantum science and cosmology is that one is the reductionistic approach to understanding physical reality (at the smallest scale) and the other considers the universe holistically. Analysis means breaking apart, synthesis its opposite. "analysis, "a breaking-up" or "an untying;" from ana- "up, throughout" and lysis "a loosening" Medicine is also a good example. The health of the individuals is understood by understanding their organ system, which comprise organs, which comprise tissues, which comprise cells, which comprise organelles and cytoplasm, which comprise organic molecules. But individuals and their health require a holistic understanding, which sees the individual as part of a family which in turn is past of a community, etc., all of which is relevant to the topic.

First one uses scientific observation and then derives theory through not experiment but rather through logic. This WORKS only because their brains were logical and Ancient Language was a logical operating system.

I'm starting to get a sense of what you're trying to say here with the addition of empiricism to rational inquiry. See if this excerpt from a presentation I made a few years back on reason doesn't resonate with you. If it does, please feel free to borrow language from it liberally:

​

Thales to Galileo: rational skeptical philosophy to empirical science ​

​

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.​

​

The questioning of dogma and the application of reason was a huge leap forward. But rational skepticism without empiricism, which is the appeal to reality as the arbiter of truth, is as sterile as religion. The pronouncements of Aristotle, such as the one that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, were also taken on faith, and were not tested with actual heavy and light objects until the time of Galileo, who added the element of empiricism to the matter. Galileo was therefore not just a rationalist and philosopher, but a scientist.​

​

Between the ancient rational skeptic philosophers and the scientific skeptics of modernity came the faith based speculations of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - which was also sterile for lack of its lack of skepticism and empiricism. They applied pure reason to the articles of their faith, which led to such irrelevancies as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and how many different kinds of angels there were.​

​

Thus we see that truth is not a function of reason alone, but of reason applied to experience, which in the sciences is usually called observation, experimentation, data collection, hypothesis testing, and the like.​

​

.

It was a metaphysical language

I don't know what you mean by that.

Everything Darwin believed is both wrong and highly outdated.

You know that this claim will be rejected, right, so why make it if you can't defend it

As proof of this termites invented agriculture and air conditioned cities. Obviously they employed no experimental science.

Invented? Evolution gifted them with their talents.

I am telling you that there is no such thing as intelligence as we define it

Intelligence as I define it exists. It is the ability to understand and successfully manipulate one's environment, to recognize opportunities that can be exploited and pitfalls that can be avoided.

the most logical explanation was that the "tower of babel" was actually an event rather than a building collapse

Here's another passage that I can't interpret. I can't paraphrase this because I wouldn't know what words to use. For starters, I would call a building collapse and event. And despite mentioning it twice already, I still don't know what you mean by the Tower of Babel. It looks like you mean the literal tower as described in the biblical myth, but you might mean something metaphorical, like the natural "speciation" of language that occurs with isolation of human subpopulations, as accents, dialects, and lexicons diverge until languages not mutually comprehensible evolve - just like with ring species, but at a human cultural rather than biological level.

Our species had been led, operated, and organized by logic and knowledge and now it is led by the guy with the better hair style.

LOL. I also don't know what that means. You are entertaining albeit enigmatic.

 

[cladking]

The advent of eukaryotes? That occurred over eons. The advent of multicellular animal like? Same answer. It's appearance on dry land? That change also occurred over multiple generations. How long did it take for eyes and flagella to evolve into their modern forms?

I AM VNOT DISPUTING THESE THINGS TOOK A LONG TIME. I am disputing the the change was gradual OR caused by survival of the fittest.

Where is your evidence for gradual change?

 

[cladking]

That's a statement that contradicts observation. Are you familiar with ring species?

Every "ring species" presented was a very minor adaptation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I AM NOT DISPUTING THESE THINGS TOOK A LONG TIME. I am disputing the the change was gradual

I don't see a distinction there. Gradual means in steps: "late Middle English: from medieval Latin gradualis, from Latin gradus ‘step’."

Where is your evidence for gradual change?

In the multiple nested hierarchies found in biology. In observed evolution. In ring species. In transitional forms. In the hominin fossils.

Every "ring species" presented was a very minor adaptation.

The adaptation was of a specific type - biological evolution - and it generated a new species. Of course, I'm assuming the standard definitions of all of those words.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

You keep claiming that you have all the evidence or all the experiments, but you have never been to present any, so these are nothing more than empty claims.

And you keep making claims about all sorts of wacky concepts, as if they were facts, but when you cannot support them with evidence or with experiments, then you have no facts...you just have more claims that are nothing more than your personal beliefs.

And you keep accusing and blaming others for disagreeing with you and your concepts, as being following religions, not science or being dogmatic, but again, they just more empty claims, plus you’re projecting. You are the one being dogmatic with your personal beliefs in your baseless concepts.

For years now, you have peddling this nonsense about 40,000 years old ancient science, where globally people only spoke one (metaphysical & binary) language, a science and language better than any modern sciences and any modern languages.

That’s just more BS claims, unsupported by any evidence.

Your problem is you are confusing claims with evidence & facts. It isn’t.

Lastly, you admitted you are not biologist and not archaeologist, and yet you believe you know more about biology and archaeology THAN EVERYONE ELSE.

You have also claimed to have superior knowledge of secret knowledge of single spoken and written language that everyone spoke & wrote, dated all the way 40,000 years ago. And yet, I know for fact that you cannot speak, read & write in any other language other than English.

How would you know what these people “think”, 40,000 years ago, when you cannot speak or read their dead language?

You have also claimed that everyone 40,000 years ago, were masters of science, and yet, where are your evidence for this claim?

You keep making unsupported & unsubstantiated claims, one after outrageous another, as if they were facts, and not your dogma.

That’s just you being arrogant with false claims of superior knowledge and your empty personal beliefs.

 

[jbg]

I put this thread in "beliefs and skepticism" out of the sense of wonder I get staring into the night sky on a clear night. We see stars, but we are not seeing what's happening now. Where did this all begin?

There are all kinds of creation stories out there. The problem with al of these theories is that they are unprovable. None of them, understandably, tells what happened before the elements of water, animals and man were created. Even worse, the "scientific" explanation, the Big Bang, posits a constantly expanding "universe." So, are areas lying outside the "universe" also part of the "universe"? Is the "universe" universal? The explanation(s) don't satisfy. My poll that accompanies this post asks posters to select among the stories.

The one that we are most familiar with is the story in the book of Genesis, starts off like this (link):

When God began to create heaven and earth— the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water— God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day and called the darkness Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day-- God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the water, that it may separate water from water.” God made the expanse, and it separated the water which was below the expanse from the water which was above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.**** And God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”

From a book called The Vikings, by Robert Ferguson (link to citation of book) I excerpted one of their creation stories. There is, I believe, a human need to explain creation. Obviously, the reasoning is circular since no one really knows what happened and why.*

The Prose Edda opens with a section called Gylfaginning, or the 'Beguiling of Gylfi', that describes how a legendary Swedish King Gylfi visited three Heathen gods in order to question them about the origins of the world. Snorri uses the replies King Gylfi receives to layout the creation myth and cosmological structure of northern Heathendom. Gylfi learns that everything began in an empty chaos that contained a world of heat and light called Muspelheim, and an opposing dim, dark and cold world called Nifelheim. The two worlds were separated bya chasm, Ginnungagap. In the extreme physical forces that operated across Ginnungagap a giant named Ymir came into being. He was nourished by milk from the udders of a primordial cow, Audhumla. Audhumla next licked the salty stones around her into the shape of another giant, Buri. By an unspecified process Buri fathered a son, Bur, who wed a giantess, Bestla. The couple produced three sons, one of whom was Odin. Odin and his brothers created the physical world by killing Ymir and, in an act of prodigious violence, tearing the body apart and flinging the pieces in all directions. The giant's blood became the sea, his flesh the land, his bones the mountains and cliffs, his skull the vault of the heavens. Later, as Odin and his brothers were walking by the sea, two logs washed up on the sands, and from these the gods created the first human beings by breathing life and consciousness into them. They named the first man Ask and the first woman Embla. Ask means 'ash', the meaning of Embla remains obscure.

*I believe, given that this excerpt is about 0.05% of the book, that it is within copyright guidelines. Google books excerpts far greater percentages of many works.

The "scientific" rendition is, of course, the currently fashionable "big bang" theory. This is explained, in a University of Michigan website (link):

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted (sic) prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance (sic) was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys (sic) velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles (sic) observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have gotten several responses to that, all the same - rejection of the claim. Unless you have some private understanding for your words there, they are incorrect and easily shown to be. Furthermore, you don't defend them, you just claim them. And one counterexample falsifies them. Take your pick. The advent of eukaryotes? That occurred over eons. The advent of multicellular animal like? Same answer. It's appearance on dry land? That change also occurred over multiple generations. How long did it take for eyes and flagella to evolve into their modern forms?

If you had an evidenced argument, it needn't be pages and pages. A few sentences will suffice if they comprise a sound argument, which is what is lacking from your claims. But if you had such an argument, your motivation for posting it might be to change the minds of critical thinkers, knowing that nothing less will have any impact on their belief set.

The faithful in the other threads often bemoan the same thing - they just can't get an idea past a critical thinker. I just saw such a comment: "I haven't helped any. I was trying to help. Sorry. See [RF user's] response. It's useless before it began, anyway." Yes, his approach was useless because he tried to change minds with unevidenced opinions and flawed arguments, but he should know that that is useless with that demographic every time. And they get frustrated and angry at it, which is when they scoffingly wheel out words like scientism and materialistic.

That's a statement that contradicts observation. Are you familiar with ring species? They falsify your claim above.

Not exclusively. The difference between quantum science and cosmology is that one is the reductionistic approach to understanding physical reality (at the smallest scale) and the other considers the universe holistically. Analysis means breaking apart, synthesis its opposite. "analysis, "a breaking-up" or "an untying;" from ana- "up, throughout" and lysis "a loosening" Medicine is also a good example. The health of the individuals is understood by understanding their organ system, which comprise organs, which comprise tissues, which comprise cells, which comprise organelles and cytoplasm, which comprise organic molecules. But individuals and their health require a holistic understanding, which sees the individual as part of a family which in turn is past of a community, etc., all of which is relevant to the topic.

I'm starting to get a sense of what you're trying to say here with the addition of empiricism to rational inquiry. See if this excerpt from a presentation I made a few years back on reason doesn't resonate with you. If it does, please feel free to borrow language from it liberally:

​

Thales to Galileo: rational skeptical philosophy to empirical science ​

​

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.​

​

The questioning of dogma and the application of reason was a huge leap forward. But rational skepticism without empiricism, which is the appeal to reality as the arbiter of truth, is as sterile as religion. The pronouncements of Aristotle, such as the one that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, were also taken on faith, and were not tested with actual heavy and light objects until the time of Galileo, who added the element of empiricism to the matter. Galileo was therefore not just a rationalist and philosopher, but a scientist.​

​

Between the ancient rational skeptic philosophers and the scientific skeptics of modernity came the faith based speculations of the Scholastics of the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - which was also sterile for lack of its lack of skepticism and empiricism. They applied pure reason to the articles of their faith, which led to such irrelevancies as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and how many different kinds of angels there were.​

​

Thus we see that truth is not a function of reason alone, but of reason applied to experience, which in the sciences is usually called observation, experimentation, data collection, hypothesis testing, and the like.​

​

.

I don't know what you mean by that.

You know that this claim will be rejected, right, so why make it if you can't defend it

Invented? Evolution gifted them with their talents.

Intelligence as I define it exists. It is the ability to understand and successfully manipulate one's environment, to recognize opportunities that can be exploited and pitfalls that can be avoided.

Here's another passage that I can't interpret. I can't paraphrase this because I wouldn't know what words to use. For starters, I would call a building collapse and event. And despite mentioning it twice already, I still don't know what you mean by the Tower of Babel. It looks like you mean the literal tower as described in the biblical myth, but you might mean something metaphorical, like the natural "speciation" of language that occurs with isolation of human subpopulations, as accents, dialects, and lexicons diverge until languages not mutually comprehensible evolve - just like with ring species, but at a human cultural rather than biological level.

LOL. I also don't know what that means. You are entertaining albeit enigmatic.

You deal with this much more compassionately than I seem to be able to.

It isn't just the repeated nonsense, but the fact of being ignored as if the rest of us don't count and aren't even worth responding to in any meaningful way.

At least you seem to be able reach through some of that belief system and strike a chord.

 

[Audie]

Based on the performance I have seen on this thread, you will just go right back to repeating what you have been claiming and repeating as if it is verified fact for over 200 pages. You will ignore anything posted in response to you as if it isn't there. As long as someone will pay attention to you, I think you will just continue on in the same ruts you have been.

I cannot see any value to further consideration of what is only a belief system that offers no answers and ignores questions.

I do wonder what you did in life before you succumbed to all of this, but it really doesn't matter and adds no further useful information.

Trying to have a rational discussion with you under the expectation of a dialogue is pointless. You just roll on in the ruts.

Sad but true

 

[exchemist]

You deal with this much more compassionately than I seem to be able to.

It isn't just the repeated nonsense, but the fact of being ignored as if the rest of us don't count and aren't even worth responding to in any meaningful way.

At least you seem to be able reach through some of that belief system and strike a chord.

I gave up with @cladking months ago. And not only on this forum.

 

[Audie]

I gave up with @cladking months ago. And not only on this forum.

WF

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I gave up with @cladking months ago. And not only on this forum.

I tried to for a long time, but I just couldn't hold my tongue to all that nonsense. I'm better now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tried to for a long time, but I just couldn't hold my tongue to all that nonsense. I'm better now.

For now . . . Muah! Ha ha! (evil laughter).