It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Comments (Page 5,384)

Showing posts 107,661 - 107,680 of132,977
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109700
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You die and decay;
The thing which caused life keeps causing life;
Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
We can created life in a lab.

Our machines are more efficient than anything found in nature.

Yes, we are more efficient if your assertion were correct.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109701
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Thus agreeing with me. Now what?
<quoted text>
All of which intelligence does.
<quoted text>
Amazing, isnt it?
<quoted text>
Yet species are still alive and surviving.
Isnt that just Miraculous?!!
<quoted text>
It also resulted in the "fine-tuning" of the universe is certain ways, to facilitate the emergence of structure and life too. Examples of this include but are not limited to:
a. ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
b. strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
c. elative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
d. ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
But you just conveniently forgot all that didnt you?
<quoted text>
I might agree, IF you admit that you are one of the retarded entities whos existence demonstrates the in-efficiency of evolution.
<quoted text>
No. I dont speak moron.
Neither do my friends, so I wouldnt understand when you speak moron.

There is no evidence for fine tuning. It is just another philosophical notion creotards believe because they think it mitigates the fact of evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109702
Feb 3, 2013
 
spoonfuloFSugar20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's interesting! Be careful, there is a guy running around posing as different people and I think his name is Donald Edge, as I'm trying to recall. Just a heads up!
Thanks. Not that their chosen identities really matter to us. Most of those known to us who try to use sockpuppets on us are often found out. And if they aren't then we deal with their claims as they come anyway.

In the case of the guy who calls himself 'God Himself' though, we can tell from his writing style is pretty much new to us here on the evolution forum. That's not to say he hasn't engaged in sockpuppetry elsewhere though.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109703
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
Are you gay?
No. But that's irrelevant to the point.
God Himself wrote:
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
Dude wrote:
"Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works...
God Himself wrote:
See?
Is that logical?
Is that intellectually honest?
Is that fair thinking?
No, for here is the actual quote:
Dude wrote:
"Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works efficiently.
Meaning that like most fundies you're willing to dishonestly ignore context to promote a point. I state that if you are required to do so it undermines your point. I also still maintain that your point is still irrelevant.
God Himself wrote:
Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
It is not a fact until you can demonstrate it. You can't. Does a cat deny its felinity if it denys the existence of God? Or what if it thinks the Gods are something different? It's still a feline. Because we named it so.
God Himself wrote:
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
Here:
God Himself wrote:
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?
To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.
You attempted to substitute efficiency with performance. I pointed out that a performance can be inefficient. You did not deny this, then went right back to arguing "efficiency=God". In the meantime I am still no closer to finding out who or what "God" is, where it is, what it looks like, how it did whatever it is you think it did, where it did it and when it did it.
God Himself wrote:
Wasnt that always my argument?
Sometimes.
God Himself wrote:
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
An "intelligent" agent. However if stars are the most efficient fusion reactors we know then they must have had an intelligence behind them. Conveniently though you do not have to tell us anything about who it is, how it did it, where it did it or when it did it. Just that something did it, somehow, somewhere, at sometime because the sun is efficient.

However what happens if in the future we invent a fusion reactor that can perform more efficiently than stars then we can consider stars inefficient and therefore not designed. Or more likely efficiency will again be irrelevant and you will be back to claiming performance is enough, in which case the whole concept becomes unfalsifiable and therefore non-scientific due to a lack of comparisons since pretty much everything in the universe can be said to "perform" in some way. Ergo your apologetics amounts to little more than philosophical mastrubation.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109704
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Correct, the efficiency is not relevant, it's the mechanisms which went into figuring them out (biological neurological cognitive processes) which demonstrate intelligence. Hence Newton described gravity, Einstein described it a little better, and quantum physics described it more efficiently again. Yet all were intelligent. Gravity itself of course being an intelligent process because it involves a performance.

Coming soon: INTELLIGENT FALLING THEORY! That'll show those dunces at Harvard, right?
God Himself wrote:
Indeed, one fool makes many.
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
Despite this you keep making baseless criticisms of scientific concepts. And when demonstrated you are then asked for a better alternative. You then simply appropriate the same scientific research, credit it to God and say that's how God did it because you are unable to even discuss the subject, much less provide any valid critiques. Stupidity and intellectual dishonesty on your part, all in the same breath.
God Himself wrote:
MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_li...
And this is what you get for relying on non-scientific websites by people who design websites for a living.

http://www.lukemastin.com/services.html

Is chemistry inanimate?
God Himself wrote:
You dont even know anything about science, do you?
Ah, that must be why you're talking apologetics for Jewish wizardry and I'm not.
God Himself wrote:
Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible"?
No, that is not my claim. In fact I've argued specifically AGAINST that claim with a fundie atheist called Skippy for YEARS. I have not and never claimed that (a) God does not and cannot exist. In fact I am quite open to the possibility. Reality is what it is regardless of our current knowledge. There may be Klingons in Beta quadrant. There may not be Klingons in Beta quadrant. But so far there is no evidence. Hence no reason to consider it a valid claim.
God Himself wrote:
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?
The real God or the God humans describe? I merely pointed out the BEST you could do was demonstrate it as a metaphor. It cannot be reduced from a scientific definition you are unable to provide. As a practical definition for a genuine entity it is worthless. As a label for a being of worship around which humans formed cultures and religions, it works fine. But just because Vikings worshiped Thor doesn't mean it exists.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109705
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
Godmagic is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Biology as an alternative don't know the first thing about it either.
Yes, but since you don't know any more about it than we do (assuming it even exists) then it's not us who have a problem. It is YOUR claim after all.
God Himself wrote:
Why, didnt you say "" Tell that to the species that are still surviving?
See, YOU ARE PREDISPOSED TO ASSUMING THE NEGATIVE AS IT RELATES TO GOD.
Precisely. That's because YOU claimed it was EFFICIENT. I claim that a 99% FAILURE rate is NOT efficent. Of course the problem is that "efficiency" COULD be described as subjective - a plane is more efficient than a bird because it can fly faster. A bird is more efficient than a plane because it's much more maneuverable. Both are designed because they perform efficiently. QED.
God Himself wrote:
I dont have a problem with evolution.
Evolution is THE STUDY (not the fact, but the STUDY) "...of how living things have changed over time SINCE life FIRST AROSE..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]
While even God Himself spoke of how the earth would be transformed after the Eden incident (as such), I have no reason to take a stance AGAINST evolution theory.
As your "explanation" for everything is Goddidit with magic you have no reason to take a stance against any concept whatsoever, whether it be valid or not.(shrug)
God Himself wrote:
My problem is with dumb-@sses who think that "there is no need for God", is a conclusion regarding the role of God in the Natural world. Idiots!
Then worry not! It's NOT a conclusion regarding the role of God in the natural world, but a conclusion based on the complete and total utter lack of scientific evidence FOR it. That does not mean it does not exist. It does not even mean it's not essential. It just means that the concept is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. Therefore irrelevant to science, period.
God Himself wrote:
Show me the post where I wrote that.
Okay:
God Himself wrote:
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
You could have simply said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

Instead you have effectively just said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it while the efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

This is in a post where you critiqued another poster for being "unintelligible".
God Himself wrote:
And even if I did write that; wouldnt you be able to make sense of it, seeing the obvious repetition?
Perhaps Mikey and his SCP idea could.

:-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109706
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Thus agreeing with me. Now what?
<quoted text>
All of which intelligence does.
<quoted text>
Amazing, isnt it?
<quoted text>
Yet species are still alive and surviving.
Isnt that just Miraculous?!!
Subjectively speaking, yes, we could call it a miracle considering the inefficiency of the "design" process.
God Himself wrote:
It also resulted in the "fine-tuning" of the universe is certain ways, to facilitate the emergence of structure and life too. Examples of this include but are not limited to:
a. ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
b. strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
c. elative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
d. ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
But you just conveniently forgot all that didnt you?
There's nothing to forget. If universes exist it COULD be that our physics is the only one possible. OR it could be that there are countless other different configurations, in which case each is just as equally unlikely as each other. But we KNOW that IF there is a universe starting we know that ONE of those HAS to be an outcome. Would it still be "fine tuned" if the physics of the universe worked completely differently?

Wait a minute - you can't even demonstrate it was deliberately "tuned" to begin with, since you'll completely avoid providing us with any mechanisms or any evidence for your claims in the slightest.

So what was this whole thing about again?(shrug)
God Himself wrote:
I might agree, IF you admit that you are one of the retarded entities whos existence demonstrates the in-efficiency of evolution.
Let's see: spine originally from quadrupeds leading to lower back problems in old age, choking on our food, wisdom teeth, appendix susceptible to infection... wait. I'm describing TEH FALL, aren't I? In which case we still have an inefficiency of creation, like fallen angels, evil talking lizards, stupid childish humans, who were then tempted by the so-called "evil" lizard to eat from a tree that God decided to put within easy reach instead of on the other side of the planet. Or the galaxy. Or the universe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109707
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thank you for your support.

Evolution is effective, but not efficient.

Therefore, by your own CAPS LOCK emphasised insistence, not intelligently driven.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109708
Feb 3, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
Precisely. That's because YOU claimed it was EFFICIENT.
GH's argument has become so confused, I can only assume he has forgotten whatever it was he rote learned from some Creatard book, and now he is presenting is arse-backwards!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109709
Feb 3, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You die and decay;
The thing which caused life keeps causing life;
Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
That one is almost good enough to be used as an example of poor logic in a text book. Perhaps you need to look up the word "efficient".

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109710
Feb 4, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No. As we already established the Bible has leeway in "interpretation".
That's like saying that a supertanker doesn't exactly turn on a dime...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109711
Feb 4, 2013
 
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So why did evolutionists change their story? They distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, but humans and apes had a common ancester. Why make a big deal of the common ancester thing, if the common ancester was an ape also??? That doesn't even make sense.<quoted text>With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.
Heavy sigh.

darwin only said that variations occurred but that whatever beak or size finches had, they were stil finches. So there must be some influence from the environment.

How did they get were they got.

How did the evolve, what did the first one look like. a.s.o.

And then we get the entire creationist christian community (since being at the zoo and seeing a novelty in the form of an ape that resembles humans a great deal) started the tune of humans deriving from apes. And never making the logic jump. They stil expect proof in the shape of a gorilla giving birth to a human, or a human to a simian.

That was also your first statement (as wel as HTS as various others) as in comparison. APE-HUMAN
The point is that we are related, out genes just duplicate a bit faster, so we look different for starters.
But ages ago you would have put us in a zoo too!
And Polynesians and Africans were!

Start thinking concestors.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109712
Feb 4, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
quote:
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
end quote.
Well that's your opinion. Not even an argument as such.

THAT is NOT what was meant!
In the way it was intended to be used, also as described in computercode: each agent generates enough random elements to let them innovate.

Agent in this sense can even be a particular bit of RNA or one virus, one fly, an ant or a bit in a computerprogram.

Memory stores experience. So keep what works. Is learning.
Intelligence: ability to solve problems and learn.
So we are a big sack full of bits that have learned a small piece, but that all work together.
Symbioticaly. What was first a predator has become part of the whole. And works to sustain it.
But IT DOES NOT THINK!
You could almost compare us to a swarm.
Bio-chemical interaction.
More dictated by organs than brain, or will thus.

You would have to proove hat will-power was at work in even the least of elements.
On the other hand the bible states free-will.
So god can never be proven by this road of reasoning.
(not that you even ever got there)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109713
Feb 4, 2013
 
every cell pumps Na and Ca very efficient.
It's the property, it's what it's doing.
(It's like explaining Eigenvalue, that's perfectly evident to native speakers of Dutch.)

Was it induced.
Yes, at a certain point.

By an outside intelligence? As in intentionally.
NO

Though our forebares would consider them gods!
Hot thermal springs near volcanoes.

The very soil that was conducive to form a shell.
A god or goddess too.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109714
Feb 4, 2013
 
Characteristic...that which defines the thing,person etc.

ex.
Eigenvalues are a special set of scalars associated with a linear system of equations (i.e., a matrix equation) that are sometimes also known as characteristic roots, characteristic values (Hoffman and Kunze 1971), proper values, or latent roots (Marcus and Minc 1988, p. 144).

The determination of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a system is extremely important in physics and engineering, where it is equivalent to matrix diagonalization and arises in such common applications as stability analysis, the physics of rotating bodies, and small oscillations of vibrating systems, to name only a few. Each eigenvalue is paired with a corresponding so-called eigenvector (or, in general, a corresponding right eigenvector and a corresponding left eigenvector; there is no analogous distinction between left and right for eigenvalues).

end quote

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109715
Feb 4, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you gay?
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
<quoted text>
See?
Is that logical?
Is that intellectually honest?
Is that fair thinking?
Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
<quoted text>
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
<quoted text>
Wasnt that always my argument?
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
<quoted text>
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Indeed, one fool makes many.
<quoted text>
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]
You dont even know anything about science, do you?
<quoted text>
Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible" ( wikipedia.com )?
Got it.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
<quoted text>
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?
LOL!!!!
I don't care is his name is DE or HB or GH, it's from Kingston and on this forum bound to always get definitions wrong, or taken out of context, misunderstand and twist and then 'the wrong' is persisted in and used to project some daft prejudice.
Adding more 'wrong'.

I simply reach the point of concluding that nothing works against this kind of daft.
It can't be argued with, because it simply can't keep on track.
As in use the proper definion. And that would be the first requisite for a discussion.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109716
Feb 4, 2013
 
And i do advise innocent bystanders to track back to the actual post. Of The Dude and God Himself.
In one-sided quotes it might even make sense.
But reading the conversation you know that a straitjacket is needed.

As in no one else is laughing or thinking that we have read a smart piece of sensible science-based, logical conclusions from God Himself!

That's thus a big red flag!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109717
Feb 4, 2013
 
GH
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
The Dude wrote:
..."Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works...
GH: See?
----
Terminating a sentence instead of representing the entire line of reasoning it is inherent too, does not proof you are right.
It is called intellectual dishonesty. Misrepresenting the arguement of the opponent, never works.
----
GH: And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.**

The Dude wrote:
. Yet above you just stated it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works.

GH:** Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
---
Well effective and efficient are nye to no difference. Which you admit by pointed out later on.^^*
-----
The Dude wrote:
Now you're back to saying efficiency is what matters.
GH:^^* and **Wasnt that always my argument?

GH: Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.

The Dude wrote:
I claim neither are relevant as evidence of intelligence as they are merely being used as weasel-words in order to avoid directly explaining the mechanisms responsible.

GH:^^*n and ** If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
----
You defined effective as intelligence.
Effective effort equals thus intelligent efforts.
Efficiency is not inherent in the subject.
You startd with stating that it does not matter how effective you do things it will never show intelligence.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109718
Feb 4, 2013
 
You defined effective as intelligence.
Effective effort equals thus intelligent efforts.
Efficiency is not inherent in the subject.
You started with stating that it does not matter how effective you do things it will never show intelligence.

So if GH writes:
GH:^^*n and ** If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.

We all read, by using his own definitions:
A subject has no intelligence,
but if intelligence is not evidence of intelligence: then your- the subject that has no intelligence- most intelligent efforts will never be able to demonstrate your-the subject that has no intelligence- intelligence.

S NO A
A=A
S NO A, NO A, S NO A, thus NO A.

Well i've never come upon such a perfect sample of nonsense, logical fallacies and gobbledegook before.

BUT if they DO GOD, THEN THEY are suddenly, unexplainably intelligent!

B=A=S

Without explaining where B comes from, or how the process would work.
And we seen that before in history, the perfect god made human being: intellectually challenged people where thought to be of the devil.
Or weak and needed culling.

GH paraphrased.:Evo's do not do induced intelligence, named as god, but do go to Harvard.

This last sentence is a check to see if GH indeed intented to blame all unintelligence on unbelieve in god.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109719
Feb 4, 2013
 
And if we would also take effort to mean work...
And what God Himself said about that, we get the devils cauldron hosted by God Himself.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 107,661 - 107,680 of132,977
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••