A Strange Circularity (Stanley Fish Article)

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 27

Quote:

There's no need for me to undermine the credibility of science as it stands on it's own record of uncertain shifting facts and truths. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've read, "Scientists once believed...". haha

God is and has always been used to explain the phenomena that science has yet to discover some truth too. I'd hate to misinterpret this, are you saying that the God you worship today is has the very same powers and influence over the world that people used believe in? Do you really believe that the men of the bible believed in the same God you do? Because that would be absurd. Even your religion missionary, evolved from an even more tribal and superstitious belief system. Just take a look at your OT God and compare him to your NT God. Then if you dare, delve deeper into the religions that preceded yours and their superstitions. All of which came directly from a lack of scientific study. Science begs to be corrected when wrong, religion on the other hand denies any attempt to be corrected.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Science, I shall say, reflects humanity's strive to understand. Its findings can be flawed just as human thought and reason is sometimes flawed, but its method will always correct in the future any past fallacies. This is, of course, if further information can be gathered.

Incorrect theories and hypotheses are due to what was known at the time, not the scientific method.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I don't know how reasonable it is to trust logic. We have an Iraq war wreck and a faltering economy from the hands of experts. So the logic of scientific peer review is that 2 or 3 flawed logicians is better than 1? haha

How is it reasonable to trust logic? WTF? Missionary will now tell us why logic is unnecessary and he will prove it with logic!

About the war/ economy thing: not the same as science. In the Iraq war and economics you have special interests, a fair amount of bias, and certain agendas to serve. The scientific peer review system is nothing like this. Scientists won't look to play a kind of political game with each other, they look at things from a purely academic standpoint. They also avoid bias. For example, biologists would love to come across a plausible theory against evolution. Science peer reviewed literature is also scrutinized by many people in a specific field.

You also mentioned psychotropic drugs. I would have to agree that these drugs are debatable when you come to sstuff like ritalin. But that is more of a fault of capitalism infiltrating one branch of science. The pharmaceutical industry does have a lot to answer for, but it doesn't speak for all science.

You should read more...

Widespread Ghostwriting of Drug Trials

Troubling questions about missile defense

Scan Uncovers Thousands of Copycat Scientific Articles

Researcher uses grants to buy flashy toys

University faces lawsuit for research (with documents)

Frog Study Leaps to Conclusions

Groups File For Revocation Of Medical Examiner’s License

Probe ordered into weather service woes

The Human Injury of Lost Objectivity: An Insider’s Look into the Corruption of Clinical Trials

Diet Soda and Lobbyists Clouded Vision of Hawaii Senate Health Chair? Aspartame

Defamation lawsuit filed by Purdue researcher
Taleyarkhan claims he created bubble fusion

Local firm accused of grant fraud
High-tech MER: U.S. complaint without merit

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

There's no need for me to undermine the credibility of science as it stands on it's own record of uncertain shifting facts and truths. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've read, "Scientists once believed...". haha

We learn more over time. New findings are made, and we make revisions on the basis of this new infomation. Does this mean science is useless? Does it mean that the findings of science are not credible? You should hope not. I'm quite sure that there are many things you once believed as a child, that you no longer beleive, because you have learned more since then. Does this mean that everything you know now is wrong? If revising your opinions over time, in the light of new information, undermines ones credibility, then this should apply to you as well. I know you dont care much for logic, but please tell me you get my point.

Yeah, I do get it and generally agree. I'm also wise enough to know that institutions are corrupted in some form at every level. That's a condition of humans. No matter if we're talking about gov't, courts, prison, universities, clubs, churches, religions, or science there will exist fraud and deceit to some extent. Money, power, recognition cause people to do things. So does laziness. In science this takes the form of cutting corners, plagiarism, faked data, grant fraud, research bias, contractors hired to create a favorable reports. Money and motivation can and does buy science.

bagnasty wrote:

missionary wrote:

As far as faith in Christ, it's exactly like faith in science only it's far from blind and is 100% certain which science will never be.

Clearly fundamentalists of all kinds are certain that what they believe is true, but does being certain of something make it true. No. Muslims are just as certain that Islam is true and Christianity is false as you are that Islam is false and Christianity is true. It should be obvious to you that it could not be possible for Christianity (or Islam) to be true and false at the same time.

So, if you are certain, then you should have very good reasons for your certitude. You should easily be able to convience us that christianity is true. I'm as certain as i can be of anything that you cannot do this because, for as long as people have been asserting that the christian god exists, no one has proffered any conviencing evidence to show that it does. Also, they have not been able to resolve some fundamental difficulties that arise from their claims about this god. This is blind faith, missionary- faith that believes without good reasons and in spite of evidence to the contrary- not the self-correcting faith (trust), grounded in empirical evidence and reasoning, of science.

I would agree with you if I had arrived at my certainty by means of an ascension to knowledge by logic, reason, and empirical evidence. In fact, if that was the case then it would be expected that I could present that case with ease. I did not. The only person that could prove God's existence to you or anyone is the Lord Himself. That's exactly why I know what I know.

missionary wrote:

Out of curiosity, why would you assume I have "faith in the healing power of jesus"? And what exactly is that anyway?

bagnasty wrote:

If faith in science is no better than faith in the healing power of jesus, for example, why dont you stay home and pray that you will get better?

I'm not assuming that you have faith in the healing power of jesus, i was just using that as an example. The point is that if science is not getting at the truth, if it is not credible, if scientists are just making leaps of faith, then how do you account for its success? If you really believed all that about science, and you were having severe abdominal pain, a hospital would be the last place you would go. You would be better off staying home and praying that you will get better. I doubt you would be that intellectually consistent.[/quote]

Science has made phenomenal progress; I don't deny that. The issues I have with science hype and deception is a different story.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Sliced_Bread wrote:

Quote:

There's no need for me to undermine the credibility of science as it stands on it's own record of uncertain shifting facts and truths. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've read, "Scientists once believed...". haha

God is and has always been used to explain the phenomena that science has yet to discover some truth too. I'd hate to misinterpret this, are you saying that the God you worship today is has the very same powers and influence over the world that people used believe in? Do you really believe that the men of the bible believed in the same God you do? Because that would be absurd. Even your religion missionary, evolved from an even more tribal and superstitious belief system. Just take a look at your OT God and compare him to your NT God. Then if you dare, delve deeper into the religions that preceded yours and their superstitions. All of which came directly from a lack of scientific study. Science begs to be corrected when wrong, religion on the other hand denies any attempt to be corrected.

Why would the Creator of energy, matter, and life need correction? The advancement of the sciences, technology, civilization, and the human race has not improved hate, crime, nations with borders or weapons, intolerance, indifference, famine, or suffering. I know self-centeredness hasn't changed. Man is no different today than he was 5000 years ago. We just have more toys and we can get there faster.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Science, I shall say, reflects humanity's strive to understand. Its findings can be flawed just as human thought and reason is sometimes flawed, but its method will always correct in the future any past fallacies. This is, of course, if further information can be gathered.

Incorrect theories and hypotheses are due to what was known at the time, not the scientific method.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that type of measured approach and I'm not trying to appear anti-science. I'm not. I have more of an issue with the journalism and media aspect as it's presented to the public. It's being spoonfed as bite-sized truths complete with artists renderings and hollywood CGI animations. It's deceptive.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 27

The men of the bible believed the world to be flat. They were wrong. The men of the bible believed natural disasters were caused by a hot tempered God, again they were wrong. Science gives reason to places that only God gave before. Man has greatly changed in the past 5000 years. Birth survival rates are higher than 5000 years ago, disease prevention is higher than 5000 years ago, critical thinking is flourishing at a rate much higher than 5000 years ago. Your lack of faith in mankind doesn't change the fact that science makes life possible for many people that would not have survived even 100 years ago. People that did nothing to offend God, just born in an age where science couldn't help them.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Missionary wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

Science, I shall say, reflects humanity's strive to understand. Its findings can be flawed just as human thought and reason is sometimes flawed, but its method will always correct in the future any past fallacies. This is, of course, if further information can be gathered.

Incorrect theories and hypotheses are due to what was known at the time, not the scientific method.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that type of measured approach and I'm not trying to appear anti-science. I'm not. I have more of an issue with the journalism and media aspect as it's presented to the public. It's being spoonfed as bite-sized truths complete with artists renderings and hollywood CGI animations. It's deceptive.

That I agree with. I would rather get science from the horse's mouth, like off a science website. Movies often misrepresent the facts. Speaking of which, The Day After Tomorrow is one of the worst for doing this.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

I disagree. It's the science media propagating speculation and conjecture. Discovering evidence is one thing. Spinning a tale around is quite another.

For example: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080529195341.htm

Quote:

"The Sheffield archaeologists, Professor Mike Parker-Pearson and Professor Andrew Chamberlain, believe that the cremation burials could represent the natural deaths of a single elite family and its descendants, perhaps a ruling dynasty . One clue to this is the small number of burials in Stonehenge´s earliest phase, a number that grows larger in subsequent centuries, as offspring would have multiplied."
[snip]
"Many archaeologists previously believed that people had been buried at Stonehenge only between 2700 and 2600 B.C.,"

"— it was clearly a special place at that time. One has to assume anyone buried there had some good credentials."

"Archaeologists have long speculated about whether Stonehenge was put up by prehistoric chiefs — perhaps even ancient royalty — and the new results suggest that not only is this likely to have been the case but it also was the resting place of their mortal remains."

Almost ALL of their articles are like this. Speculation, conjecture, wishy-washy "maybe" and "perhaps" but leading the reader to believe that these are facts and that scientists "somehow KNOW". They don't know jack about what happened there unless it was in writing. Stonehenge could be an alter of human sacrifice for all they know. They can't know the deaths were natural or that the dead were family members much less "royalty". This is science fiction being spoonfed to the ignorant as "True Tales of the Scientifically Fantastic".

That's just one of a hundred stories on that site alone. Start reading through some of them and you'll see what I mean.

There is no way a reader would come away thinking these are anything less than facts and discoveries of events just as they happened. It's utterly preposterous.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Sliced_Bread wrote:

The men of the bible believed the world to be flat. They were wrong.

That's Enlightenment propaganda. Some medieval writers made this claim not scripture. If you have scripture that says the world is flat then produce it. And of course this wouldn't apply to figures of speech or metaphorical illustrations.

Sliced_Bread wrote:

The men of the bible believed natural disasters were caused by a hot tempered God, again they were wrong. Science gives reason to places that only God gave before.

Really? Has science declared "clairvoyance" on CAUSE? If they KNEW when, how, and why plates shift, lava flows, tornadoes spawn, tsunamis, cyclones, and every other event we would know weeks in advance. However, all they have is computer models and math equations to make theoretical predictions that are hardly accurate. Weather is the best they've got. We have satellites and computers watching the atmosphere 24/7 and the best we can hope for is they spot something developing and try to predict what it might do. What they CANNOT account for is the origin and cause behind each event. Thus, they have unpredictable theories.

Sliced_Bread wrote:

Man has greatly changed in the past 5000 years. Birth survival rates are higher than 5000 years ago,

Man hasn't changed one iota. Technology has changed but mankind behaves the same. Do you have stats of birth mortality rates from 5000 years ago?

Sliced_Bread wrote:

disease prevention is higher than 5000 years ago,

How do you know? What empirical evidence do you have of this? Medical science seems to be learning that we've created new emerging superbugs and drug resistant strains with the very medicine they've developed.

Sliced_Bread wrote:

critical thinking is flourishing at a rate much higher than 5000 years ago.

It's interesting that you equate advancing technology with the advancement of human society. Convenience has nothing to do with behavior; electricity doesn't improve hate; air travel doesn't repress crime. Your shiny new laptop won't prevent a rape or a war.

Sliced_Bread wrote:

Your lack of faith in mankind doesn't change the fact that science makes life possible for many people that would not have survived even 100 years ago.

More people have died from technology than saved. Do you dare to count the dead from Hiroshima, Hitler's Germany, Viet Nam, or Iraq/Afghan? Your toys are mere byproducts of the carnage that technology has left in it's wake.

Sliced_Bread wrote:

People that did nothing to offend God, just born in an age where science couldn't help them.

It's a good thing we're helping so many of the select and chosen to benefit while the outsiders are left to to reap the swift injustice of our intolerance.

The advancement of civilization is all about perspective and actual cost.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

I disagree. It's the science media propagating speculation and conjecture. Discovering evidence is one thing. Spinning a tale around is quite another.

It's not the science 'media'. Crappy disaster flicks are the result of movie writers trying to bend science to turn it into a movie. Do scientists approve of this? No. Assuming a leaderless organization like the scientific community has a propaganda machine is utterly wrong. In fact, go to science based websites and you can find pieces written to explain why what is portrayed in the media is wrong. The media is a separate entity; they just sell what they think will sell.

Quote:

Man hasn't changed one iota. Technology has changed but mankind behaves the same. Do you have stats of birth mortality rates from 5000 years ago?

Human nature hasn't really changed, if that's what you mean. Society has, though. As infant mortality 5000 years ago, that's pretty much common knowledge. What moves you to say that infant mortality hasn't changed in developed nations (and even in developing nations)?

Quote:

It's interesting that you equate advancing technology with the advancement of human society. Convenience has nothing to do with behavior; electricity doesn't improve hate; air travel doesn't repress crime. Your shiny new laptop won't prevent a rape or a war.

On the contrary, a society wealthy in knowledge with improved conditions of living is less likely to see major crime rates. Most crime stems from human need. Technology can help with this. As for the rapist, that's what law enforcement is for. And how do they catch a rapist? Forensic evidence, DNA, science. Technology may not be able to change human nature, but it definately is nice to have. Then again, technology isn't supposed to change human nature. To criticize it for this reason is like criticizing vaccines because they don't cure cancer.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I disagree. It's the science media propagating speculation and conjecture. Discovering evidence is one thing. Spinning a tale around is quite another.

It's not the science 'media'. Crappy disaster flicks are the result of movie writers trying to bend science to turn it into a movie. Do scientists approve of this? No. Assuming a leaderless organization like the scientific community has a propaganda machine is utterly wrong. In fact, go to science based websites and you can find pieces written to explain why what is portrayed in the media is wrong. The media is a separate entity; they just sell what they think will sell.

I'm not talking about movies in the theater. I'm talking about science media such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/ and the like. Even the Smithsonian speaks of speculative opinion as though it's fact. It's a part of science selling itself.

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

Man hasn't changed one iota. Technology has changed but mankind behaves the same. Do you have stats of birth mortality rates from 5000 years ago?

Human nature hasn't really changed, if that's what you mean. Society has, though. As infant mortality 5000 years ago, that's pretty much common knowledge. What moves you to say that infant mortality hasn't changed in developed nations (and even in developing nations)?

I'm didn't say it hadn't. But if someone is just going to CLAIM that mortality rates from 5000 years ago has improved either it's an assumption such as, "I would imagine it's improved but I can't be sure" OR they have statistics to back such claim. My suspicion is that Sliced_Bread is just talking out loud with no knowledge whatsoever...common among science religionists.

However Sliced_Bread made a statement of fact saying, "Birth survival rates are higher than 5000 years ago", therefore I would expect someone who relies entirely upon empirical evidence who makes statements of fact to have facts to back up their statements.

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

It's interesting that you equate advancing technology with the advancement of human society. Convenience has nothing to do with behavior; electricity doesn't improve hate; air travel doesn't repress crime. Your shiny new laptop won't prevent a rape or a war.

On the contrary, a society wealthy in knowledge with improved conditions of living is less likely to see major crime rates. Most crime stems from human need. Technology can help with this. As for the rapist, that's what law enforcement is for. And how do they catch a rapist? Forensic evidence, DNA, science. Technology may not be able to change human nature, but it definately is nice to have. Then again, technology isn't supposed to change human nature. To criticize it for this reason is like criticizing vaccines because they don't cure cancer.

You should read more: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

I'm not talking about movies in the theater. I'm talking about science media such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/ and the like. Even the Smithsonian speaks of speculative opinion as though it's fact. It's a part of science selling itself.

You still haven't convinced me. Do you have an example of something that this site says is fact that isn't? I looked through a few articles and couldn't find anyhting myself.

Quote:

I'm didn't say it hadn't. But if someone is just going to CLAIM that mortality rates from 5000 years ago has improved either it's an assumption such as, "I would imagine it's improved but I can't be sure" OR they have statistics to back such claim. My suspicion is that Sliced_Bread is just talking out loud with no knowledge whatsoever...common among science religionists.

However Sliced_Bread made a statement of fact saying, "Birth survival rates are higher than 5000 years ago", therefore I would expect someone who relies entirely upon empirical evidence who makes statements of fact to have facts to back up their statements.

This shouldn't have to be researched. In poor countries, most likely not. In developed countries? Definately. Why? Back then they didn't have many qualified doctors for births; they had midwives. They also had no medications and chance of disease was greater. Why don't I have to look this up? BECAUSE IT'S SO F***ING OBVIOUS.

Quote:

You should read more: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf

While I don't really have the time to actually read that whole monstrously long thing of a report, I can still say that you are forgetting something. For one, I said 'major' crime rates. Like the ones you would see in the third world.

Now before you go claiming that I still need to provide evidence, please wait a minute. It is also obvious that people in the third world are needy or else it wouldn't be called the third world. Since most crime comes from want or need, it is logical to say that since third world people are needy and want, then there would be a lot of crime.

This is the popularly held consensus, so the burden of proof lies with you who would challenge it.

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:17 am

missionary wrote:

That's Enlightenment propaganda. Some medieval writers made this claim not scripture. If you have scripture that says the world is flat then produce it. And of course this wouldn't apply to figures of speech or metaphorical illustrations.

The point remains that you could fill a library with well established scientific facts that are not mentioned in the bible; information like the pysics used to make your computer work, for example. You may be able to argue that the bible is not wrong about the shape of the earth, but the fact remains that the bible says nothing even remotely like, "The earth is spherical in shape and travels in an elliptical obrit around the sun with seven other planets." In fact, im not aware of there being a single line in the bible that could not have been writen by someone living in the first century. Remarkable, since we are to believe that the bible was inspired by an all knowing being.

missionary wrote:

Really? Has science declared "clairvoyance" on CAUSE? If they KNEW when, how, and why plates shift, lava flows, tornadoes spawn, tsunamis, cyclones, and every other event we would know weeks in advance. However, all they have is computer models and math equations to make theoretical predictions that are hardly accurate. Weather is the best they've got. We have satellites and computers watching the atmosphere 24/7 and the best we can hope for is they spot something developing and try to predict what it might do. What they CANNOT account for is the origin and cause behind each event. Thus, they have unpredictable theories.

Nonsense. First, tornados, tsunamis, and cyclones are exapmles of complex, dynamic phenonomena, difficult to predict very far in advance, even if the processes involved are well understood. This is not proof that science has no predictive power. For less irregular occurances science has astounding and unquestionable success. Astromomers can tell you the exact date and time of the next eclipse, for example. Something like that should not be possible under your characterisation of science.

Now, as for scientists not accounting for the causes of events: the whole point of the scientific methods is to figure out just what is causing what. If scientists were not very successful at doing this, if they just have unpredictable theories and theories with no predictive abilities, then how do you account for the the remarkable success of science that even you, grudgingly, concede? This is something you need to do, for if you persist in typing out anti-science nonsense on your computer and putting it out over the internet for people hundreds of miles away to read almost instantly, it makes you look foolish.

Quote:

Do you have stats of birth mortality rates from 5000 years ago?

We have birth mortality rates from one hundred years ago, right. I, admittadly, dont have them at hand, but i am quite sure that if you were to look, you will find infant mortality to be much lower now and for life expectancy to much higher now. I'm also quite sure that if you were to compare infant mortality and life expectancy between more technologically advanced societies and less advanced societies you will find a similiar and very clear improvement in those societies more technologically advanced. This seems pretty obvious, but if you have evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

missionary wrote:

It's interesting that you equate advancing technology with the advancement of human society. Convenience has nothing to do with behavior; electricity doesn't improve hate; air travel doesn't repress crime. Your shiny new laptop won't prevent a rape or a war.

Clearly technology is morally neutral. The fruits of scientific research, like science itself, are tools in our hands, that can be used for good or ill. It's up to us to find ways of using them responsibly. That said, i do think that improving transportation and communication allows people to see that people in different countries are very much like them. This, i think, helps errode the xenophobia and strident nationalism that generally leads to hostility.

Also, technology helps people meet there material needs better, thus diminishing the violence that so easily errupts in areas of extreme scarcity. Technology is not a panecea but it can help foster the better parts of out natures, in my opinion.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I'm not talking about movies in the theater. I'm talking about science media such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/ and the like. Even the Smithsonian speaks of speculative opinion as though it's fact. It's a part of science selling itself.

You still haven't convinced me. Do you have an example of something that this site says is fact that isn't? I looked through a few articles and couldn't find anyhting myself.

The average reader will walk away from any of those articles believing the subject matter is scientific fact. When they remember the article, they will not remember "may; could be; possibly" etc. all they will remember is, IT IS .

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

I'm didn't say it hadn't. But if someone is just going to CLAIM that mortality rates from 5000 years ago has improved either it's an assumption such as, "I would imagine it's improved but I can't be sure" OR they have statistics to back such claim. My suspicion is that Sliced_Bread is just talking out loud with no knowledge whatsoever...common among science religionists.

However Sliced_Bread made a statement of fact saying, "Birth survival rates are higher than 5000 years ago", therefore I would expect someone who relies entirely upon empirical evidence who makes statements of fact to have facts to back up their statements.

This shouldn't have to be researched. In poor countries, most likely not. In developed countries? Definately. Why? Back then they didn't have many qualified doctors for births; they had midwives. They also had no medications and chance of disease was greater. Why don't I have to look this up? BECAUSE IT'S SO F***ING OBVIOUS.

While I can appreciate what may seem so f-ing obvious, oftentimes it's not as f-ing obvious as it seems. This is especially the case with those who claim to rely entirely upon empirical evidence that is observable and repeatable. For those persons, NOTHING is f-ing obvious and EVERYTHING must be observed repeatedly or else you might as well throw out the scientific method and begin claiming that "EVERYTHING is SO F*ING OBVIOUS".

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

You should read more: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf

While I don't really have the time to actually read that whole monstrously long thing of a report, I can still say that you are forgetting something. For one, I said 'major' crime rates. Like the ones you would see in the third world.

Now before you go claiming that I still need to provide evidence, please wait a minute. It is also obvious that people in the third world are needy or else it wouldn't be called the third world. Since most crime comes from want or need, it is logical to say that since third world people are needy and want, then there would be a lot of crime.

This is the popularly held consensus, so the burden of proof lies with you who would challenge it.

Thus I pointed you to an international report covering crime statistics in major countries including the US, Canada, England, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, and more showing an INCREASE in crime and violent crime over a 20 year period ending in the late 90's. This is in contrast to your statement which was, "On the contrary, a society wealthy in knowledge with improved conditions of living is less likely to see major crime rates. " . Science and technology DOES NOT improve society's criminal behavior or activity. I would also disagree with your statement that "Since most crime comes from want or need..." and suggest that crime is a result of indifference towards other's wellbeing, welfare, and feelings in the course of fulfilling self-serving desires, greed, and assertion of control and has nothing to do with need or want.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore