If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Bill Nye, the "please stop being science denying idiot" guy   (nytimes.com) divider line 494
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25755 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



494 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-18 11:10:59 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: PC LOAD LETTER: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.

Yeah, screw math, that shiat can be faked. The difficulty with GIGO is proving garbage in when actual experts reject that notion. That means the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

Appeal to authority, redirecting the burden of proof, and some non-sequiter stuff.


As if your "you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science" isn't? I never even came close to making such a claim.
 
2013-06-18 11:11:43 AM  

mainstreet62: cameroncrazy1984: StaleCoffee: But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

Sex is the only time that 1 + 1 = 3.

Sometimes 4.

I'm waiting for phork to come in and dispute your math, though.


Sex is the quaternion of the logical realm.
 
2013-06-18 11:12:08 AM  

i upped my meds-up yours: mafiageek1980: Ed Beagly Jr

[www.votable.com image 200x200]


Cute puppy!

Bonus points for an awesome name.
 
2013-06-18 11:12:19 AM  

mainstreet62: StaleCoffee: Carn: ph0rk: mainstreet62: ph0rk: You still haven't proven anything about magnetism.

WTF, yes I have. I've proven that a magnet will stick to a surface made with iron, cobalt, and/or nickel.


No, you haven't. You've provided more data points supporting the claim, but you haven't proven anything about the mechanisms involved.


mainstreet62: ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

Math IS science, dude.

No, it isn't.

biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, physics is math, and math is boring.

/math & cs major

But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

I find this funny, because I married a math & CS double major, she's awesome.


Is that a fact?
 
2013-06-18 11:12:27 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.


Wow, he thinks he's winning!?!?!?
 
2013-06-18 11:14:11 AM  

SpectroBoy: THE GREAT NAME: I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.

Wow, he thinks he's winning!?!?!?


Of course he does; he doesn't understand science.
 
2013-06-18 11:15:00 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: PC LOAD LETTER: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.

Yeah, screw math, that shiat can be faked. The difficulty with GIGO is proving garbage in when actual experts reject that notion. That means the burden of proof is on you. Go ahead.

Appeal to authority, redirecting the burden of proof, and some non-sequiter stuff.

As if your "you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science" isn't? I never even came close to making such a claim.


I notice you misrepresent the positions of other users on this thread too. You must think casual readers are very, very gullible.

Or is it just yourself you are trying to fool. Could be.
 
Ant
2013-06-18 11:16:02 AM  

Alonjar: Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


Sometimes asking "Why?" is nonsensical. Just because you can place a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it's a valid question.

What is the sound of the color blue?
 
2013-06-18 11:16:12 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: I notice you misrepresent the positions of other users on this thread too. You must think casual readers are very, very gullible.

Or is it just yourself you are trying to fool. Could be.


Why can't you name just one paper published out of 19,000 that doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?

Or is that somehow going to modify your claim?
 
2013-06-18 11:17:32 AM  

SpectroBoy: THE GREAT NAME: I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.

Wow, he thinks he's winning!?!?!?


Actully, the public are moving away from believing the climate alarmism. But I am modest enough to admit that it is more through advocates' arrogant yet irrational posturing which puts people off than the meagre efforts of THE GREAT NAME.
 
2013-06-18 11:19:15 AM  
From TFA:  "I just hope to be able to touch the hem of his lab coat, so that he can cure me of my stupid."

I work in a scientific research lab, but our upper brass are all pretty far right-wing.  That awesome line still had everyone here laughing hard and loud.

/much respect for The Nye
 
2013-06-18 11:19:35 AM  

StaleCoffee: /math & cs major

But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

I find this funny, because I married a math & CS double major, she's awesome.

Is that a fact?


Yup. She graduated magna from Fairfield University in 2007, we've been married since November 2011. Lucky? Pfffft, I feel like I've hit the lottery. ;-)
 
2013-06-18 11:21:35 AM  

mainstreet62: StaleCoffee: /math & cs major

But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

I find this funny, because I married a math & CS double major, she's awesome.

Is that a fact?

Yup. She graduated magna from Fairfield University in 2007, we've been married since November 2011. Lucky? Pfffft, I feel like I've hit the lottery. ;-)


I think we need proof for this. Show your work, too.
 
2013-06-18 11:21:51 AM  
I'm sure we'll get another self-important post from that guy saying that asking him to prove his assertion is taking away from the argument.
 
2013-06-18 11:22:37 AM  
THE GREAT NAME:

Actully, the public are moving away from believing the climate alarmism. But I am modest enough to admit that it is more through advocates' arrogant yet irrational posturing which puts people off than the meagre efforts of THE GREAT NAME.

But the privates are moving closer.
 
2013-06-18 11:26:39 AM  

StaleCoffee: mainstreet62: StaleCoffee: /math & cs major

But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

I find this funny, because I married a math & CS double major, she's awesome.

Is that a fact?

Yup. She graduated magna from Fairfield University in 2007, we've been married since November 2011. Lucky? Pfffft, I feel like I've hit the lottery. ;-)

I think we need proof for this. Show your work, too.


Yeah, she's a little shy of posting pictures of her online. I'm working on it. I keep telling her beauty doesn't need to be hidden. ;-)
 
2013-06-18 11:26:57 AM  
 
2013-06-18 11:27:46 AM  

Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?


oneworkingmusician.com
 
2013-06-18 11:29:38 AM  

wjllope: Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?

[oneworkingmusician.com image 600x600]


+10 Internets for you

/"Birth of the Cool" is still better, though
 
2013-06-18 11:30:26 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: I notice you misrepresent the positions of other users on this thread too. You must think casual readers are very, very gullible.

Or is it just yourself you are trying to fool. Could be.

Why can't you name just one paper published out of 19,000 that doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?

Or is that somehow going to modify your claim?


OK I'll bite. Heres an article about a paper in Chemical and Engineering news, about ice core samples and their bearing on the environment. As you require, it "doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?" even though it is published, evidence based and relevent to climatology. OK maybe you can see that your request was silly.

But you can see from this article what the vast bulk of the scientific literature is really like. It concentrates very specifically on the area beign researched. It discusses methodology with some care, and gives results without any political bias. Most papers are like this. Seriously, go look at a few more.

Idiot meta-studies (which are propganda, not science) count all these as pro-AGW when in fact they are neutral.

All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.
 
2013-06-18 11:31:41 AM  

snocone: utah dude: science is just another religion.

Umm, NO. Religions are imaginary, lightning is real.
Wanna see?


I wanna see. Lightning is sweet.
 
2013-06-18 11:31:49 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: I notice you misrepresent the positions of other users on this thread too. You must think casual readers are very, very gullible.

Or is it just yourself you are trying to fool. Could be.

Why can't you name just one paper published out of 19,000 that doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?

Or is that somehow going to modify your claim?

OK I'll bite. Heres an article about a paper in Chemical and Engineering news, about ice core samples and their bearing on the environment. As you require, it "doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?" even though it is published, evidence based and relevent to climatology. OK maybe you can see that your request was silly.

But you can see from this article what the vast bulk of the scientific literature is really like. It concentrates very specifically on the area beign researched. It discusses methodology with some care, and gives results without any political bias. Most papers are like this. Seriously, go look at a few more.

Idiot meta-studies (which are propganda, not science) count all these as pro-AGW when in fact they are neutral.

All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.


Where's the article? You didn't cite anything.
 
2013-06-18 11:32:36 AM  

wjllope: Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?

[oneworkingmusician.com image 600x600]


Well played, sir. Very well played.
 
2013-06-18 11:33:41 AM  

What_do_you_want_now: wjllope: Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?

[oneworkingmusician.com image 600x600]

+10 Internets for you

/"Birth of the Cool" is still better, though


100% agreed.
 
2013-06-18 11:34:20 AM  

mbillips: Something's wrong with your reading comprehension. Genesis 2:1-4 conclude the first version of the creation myth from Genesis I, the seven-day one where humanity is created last, male and female. Genesis 2:5 begins a second creation myth, saying that the events occur BEFORE there were plants and animals or any water (Genesis 2:4-5). Genesis 2:6, it rains. Genesis 2:7, man is created from the dirt. Genesis 2:8, God plants the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:19-20, animals are created AFTER Adam, and Adam names them, but no spouse (help meet) appears from among them (WTF?). Genesis 2:21-22, God makes a woman (unnamed) from Adam's rib. That's not a retelling; that's a contradictory version.


I don't know about reading comprehension assumptions, but you are cherry-picking. Verse 4: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Verse 7:Then the Lord God formed a man] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. In verse seven, it is not stated that man was created directly after the plants were, that is not the Hebrew tense used. It is a tense of logical progression, that the plants were before the people were. It states that plants were created at one point, then humans were created later; in other words, plants were in existence before humans were. It later states in similar fashion that animals were created at an earlier point than humans were.

The archeological evidence I cite is not from Genesis. Primarily, I mean the exact locations of towns described in the Bible, after the flood event, and the archeological evidence and historical evidence for the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites.
 
2013-06-18 11:34:32 AM  

Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]


Wise_Guy AKA Whys_Guy
 
2013-06-18 11:34:45 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: et no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.

wat


Heh, there is a rule in climate change debates - take the current year (or whatever year you have data up to). Take away 1998 from that year. What result does that give you? 15. Okay then, 15 is the number of years we currently should be looking at when deciding if the climate is changing. Not 14, not 16, and 20 is right out. I wonder why this rule exists, if there is some underlying scientific reason for why (currently) 15 years is all the proof you need of what is happening to climate and no other time period will do?
 
2013-06-18 11:35:02 AM  

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


So watch Neil Degrasse Tyson. All else being equal though, you don't need to be a PhD to be a scientist... there are plenty of biochemists, botanists, biologists, and geologists with MS degrees.
 
2013-06-18 11:35:03 AM  

Raharu: Watching people try to Rationalize contradicting portions of the Bible, And the portions that contradict science, Is like watching a comic book fan try to rationalize every issue of Superman as one cohesive canon story.


It's almost as if the Bible is largely a compilation of morality tales and myths. It's too bad there's not centuries of scholarship on where all the stories come from, who wrote them and what they mean both in a modern sense and the context in which they were written.
 
2013-06-18 11:36:36 AM  

xria: cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: et no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.

wat

Heh, there is a rule in climate change debates - take the current year (or whatever year you have data up to). Take away 1998 from that year. What result does that give you? 15. Okay then, 15 is the number of years we currently should be looking at when deciding if the climate is changing. Not 14, not 16, and 20 is right out. I wonder why this rule exists, if there is some underlying scientific reason for why (currently) 15 years is all the proof you need of what is happening to climate and no other time period will do?


I lol'd.
 
2013-06-18 11:37:13 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.


plonk
 
2013-06-18 11:39:09 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Appeal to authority, redirecting the burden of proof, and some non-sequiter stuff.


You understand that appealing to authority is not actually a fallacy when the "authority" you appeal to is the publishing scientific community on the subject.

It is a fallacy when you appeal to a random blog poster or your preferred politician.
 
2013-06-18 11:40:43 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Appeal to authority, redirecting the burden of proof, and some non-sequiter stuff.

You understand that appealing to authority is not actually a fallacy when the "authority" you appeal to is the publishing scientific community on the subject.

It is a fallacy when you appeal to a random blog poster or your preferred politician.


Well, he's stated that there are scientific organizations which do no science, so we're pretty far from him recognizing the authority of actual scientific organizations.
 
2013-06-18 11:42:06 AM  

firefly212: Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

So watch Neil Degrasse Tyson. All else being equal though, you don't need to be a PhD to be a scientist... there are plenty of biochemists, botanists, biologists, and geologists with MS degrees.


much more important is that for the most part basic scientific principles are very simple and with a solid grounding in the scientific method, some math and some background knowledge pretty much anybody can have a basic understanding of most of the science that's known or that's going on right now.
 
2013-06-18 11:42:24 AM  
FTFA:
But he noted that "if there's more heat driving the storm, then there's going to be more tornadoes," and added that the question "is worth investigating."

Hey Bill...maybe you should educate yourself on this whole tornado thing.

Oh wait...what's that? Oh, the rationale and scientific data mean nothing to you, and you are just using it as a political football to make yourself more famous? Carry on then.
 
2013-06-18 11:43:07 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: I notice you misrepresent the positions of other users on this thread too. You must think casual readers are very, very gullible.

Or is it just yourself you are trying to fool. Could be.

Why can't you name just one paper published out of 19,000 that doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?

Or is that somehow going to modify your claim?

OK I'll bite. Heres an article about a paper in Chemical and Engineering news, about ice core samples and their bearing on the environment. As you require, it "doesn't provide evidence of a catastrophic feedback loop?" even though it is published, evidence based and relevent to climatology. OK maybe you can see that your request was silly.

But you can see from this article what the vast bulk of the scientific literature is really like. It concentrates very specifically on the area beign researched. It discusses methodology with some care, and gives results without any political bias. Most papers are like this. Seriously, go look at a few more.

Idiot meta-studies (which are propganda, not science) count all these as pro-AGW when in fact they are neutral.

All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.

Where's the article? You didn't cite anything.


Here: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html
 
2013-06-18 11:43:08 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Raharu: Watching people try to Rationalize contradicting portions of the Bible, And the portions that contradict science, Is like watching a comic book fan try to rationalize every issue of Superman as one cohesive canon story.

It's almost as if the Bible is largely a compilation of morality tales and myths. It's too bad there's not centuries of scholarship on where all the stories come from, who wrote them and what they mean both in a modern sense and the context in which they were written.



I know right!
 
2013-06-18 11:45:31 AM  

What_do_you_want_now: wjllope: Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?

[oneworkingmusician.com image 600x600]

+10 Internets for you

/"Birth of the Cool" is still better, though


Meh. biatches Brew.
 
2013-06-18 11:45:41 AM  

mainstreet62: THE GREAT NAME: All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.

plonk


Show me some science that the IPCC did.
 
2013-06-18 11:47:19 AM  
Oh it's this thread again.jpg
 
2013-06-18 11:49:01 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: mainstreet62: THE GREAT NAME: All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.

plonk

Show me some science that the IPCC did.


Tons of it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_repor ts .shtml#.UcCA0JwuIXE
 
2013-06-18 12:00:35 PM  
How you gonna write an article about Bill Nye and not mention BattleBots?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-18 12:03:21 PM  

Abuse Liability: cameroncrazy1984: Abuse Liability: cameroncrazy1984: Abuse Liability: Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate.  If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?

I didn't ask any questions.  Do you read words and return thoughtful replies are you more a reactionary who could be described as someone who... how did you put it 'already made up your mind' before you began typing?  I simply made a statement.

Your statement implies that everyone who understands climate science will tell you that "we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately," which also implies that your mind is made up on the matter.

Hardly, did you notice the little part where I mentioned that climatology has continued to successfully address these issues?  What's funny is we're both probably on the same side, i was just criticizing you for mocking the scientific process.  It's our job to poke holes.  I believe we should all do what we can to minimize CO2 emissions.  I drive a honda civic and live as close to work as I can reasonably afford.  I'm still haven't decided whether or not I believe we should make policy changes that would divert resources away from say, the NIH, in order to fund 'possible' cleanup efforts


Just a quick point of contention: the numerical number of 13k is rather meaningless without context. What's that when converted to a percentage against the majority opinion?

Do the research papers you're referencing all agree that anthropological sources plays no role or are they merely disagreeing the degree to which anthropological sources play a role? How old are these papers? What's the peer reviewed consensus?

A handful of skeptics have also changed their opinions. Were any of those researchers one?

The fact is that there's a solid majority of scientists that agree on a few points: 1. Climate Change is happening. 2. Humans have either expedited the process or are largely responsible for it.

So, even if you have 13k worth of scientists in agreement... are they the majority? What are common criticisms they face? Do they have a valid and scientific rebuttal?
 
2013-06-18 12:05:50 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Here: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html


That paper doesn't appear to be about massive positive feedback loops. Of course it doesn't have evidence thereof.

If that's your point, that's a really dumb point. Why would a paper that doesn't consider massive feedback loops have evidence of it? And why would YOU claim that nobody has evidence of it based on this paper?
 
2013-06-18 12:06:46 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: StaleCoffee: But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

Sex is the only time that 1 + 1 = 3.


This is only true for exceptionally large values of 1.
 
2013-06-18 12:06:49 PM  

mainstreet62: THE GREAT NAME: mainstreet62: THE GREAT NAME: All the chicken-little stuff comes from a few corrupt high-ranking scientists (Mann, Hansen, Phil Jones), the IPCC (a political organisation which does no science) the likes of WWF and Greenpeace, excited journalists and greedy politicians.

plonk

Show me some science that the IPCC did.

Tons of it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_repor ts .shtml#.UcCA0JwuIXE


He's going to tell you that none of those are scientific because there are politicians who use them. Somehow negating their scientific worth.
 
2013-06-18 12:06:55 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Sybarite: vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.


The mushy bit in the middle is increasingly sceptical about AGW. Rightly so, since it is utter nonsense.



i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-18 12:09:22 PM  

mamoru: If science answers "how?" questions, then by definition, that includes "how come?"


For most farkers, masturbation.
 
2013-06-18 12:09:25 PM  

Ant: Alonjar: Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

Sometimes asking "Why?" is nonsensical. Just because you can place a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it's a valid question.

What is the sound of the color blue?


Well, you could convert the colors to wavelengths, then map those to frequencies, and then that question does make sense.  But you make a good point.
 
2013-06-18 12:11:16 PM  

Carn: cameroncrazy1984: StaleCoffee: But sex is biology, and that kind of coupling is mathematically awesome.

Sex is the only time that 1 + 1 = 3.

This is only true for exceptionally large values of 1.


I was wondering when someone would point that out.
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report