Comments by epeeist

1951. Fleabytes

Comment #137101 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

Comment #137095 by Corylus

Of course he really blew it when he linked to a Free Church Magazine. :-))

Nice spot, I think the Nov. 15th "Expelled" post rather gives it away.

1952. Fleabytes

Comment #137092 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 10:39 am

Comment #137087 by Deepthought

What were the real reasons for his banning? I'm fairly certain his are slightly skewed.

Posting in a way to cause flamefests, possibly deliberately. However, having read some of his posts elsewhere this is debatable.

Then quotemining the responses and using them elsewhere to show what nasty people we are.

1953. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136948 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #136944 by Steve Zara

I'm afraid I don't really have the strength of emotional responses you seem to think. I just believe that bullies like you do positive harm to this site. My impression is that this is supposed to be a place where people with different views can express them. Sure, we get insults, but those normally at least contain some content, or have an actual point.

Steve - I think it is a case of penis envy.

1954. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136907 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 2:37 am

Comment #136856 by brue68

I'd just like to say that I don't like having seat belt and helmet laws. I use a seat belt, because otherwise I feel like I'm falling out of the seat, but if someone feels like risking their life for perceived comfort or personal preference, I don't see why we should apply a penalty.

I remember when the law was promulgated here in the UK and there were lots of people moaning about it. They had a surgeon on the radio who was all in favour of it.

When asked why he said that it meant that he no longer had to extract large numbers of pieces of glass from people's faces.

1955. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #136904 by epeeist on March 2, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #136564 by Mango

Never give in to the demands of terrorists or they will keep up their tactics. This is encouraging extremists to continue to threaten violence because it meets their goals!

Well we in the UK were hassled by the Danes in previous generations but ignoring that, Kipling gets it right.

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:-
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:-"
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:-"

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

1956. Fleabytes

Comment #136538 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

Comment #136535 by Paula Kirby

Now I've answered your question, perhaps you would return the favour and answer the two I posted for you yesterday:

I don't think it is going to happen Paula. He (assumption on my part) seems to get to then end of one sentence and then forgets what he has said and so posts it anyway.

Attention span of a small goldfish.

1957. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #136363 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:55 am

Comment #136361 by Jon_Sociologist

It's also your turn.

Agreed

Wooter - the way a debate works is that you ask questions, we provide answers.

We then ask questions, it is your turn to provide answers.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but until you provide answers to all of Jon_Sociologist's questions then I for one will not respond. Just to make life easy for you I have reworded and reformatted his questions so you can answer them more easily.

How did god make our sense of smell?
How did god make us able to feel emotion? I want the exact method.
How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given? I have given you a basic outline of the biological/physical/chemical processes going on, please do the same.
What exact force do you think god used to shape our DNA? Did he use electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force, or strong nuclear force? What was the mechanism used to generate this force?
Did he use something akin to an electron microscope to move things around? Did he use incredibly tiny tweezers?
Seeing as he's a he: what does an omnipotent immortal god need a penis for?
What goddess is he poking with it if he's the only deity?
What happened to the other gods in the old testament that apparently once existed but don't now (Baal for example)

Your turn wooter, lets have some explicit answers to these questions.

1958. Fleabytes

Comment #136362 by epeeist on March 1, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #136357 by D'Arcy

Have you got any thing constructive to say about your ideas, like maybe "there is a God" or "Jesus saves"?

Mindless banter bores me.

Banter? It is all hello can do to get beyond a single sentence response. You can strike banter, constructive and intelligent off the list I'm afraid.

1959. Fleabytes

Comment #136206 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #136184 by Quetzalcoatl

OK, I'm off too then.

Me three.

My best ever pupil came to the club last night. He now lives in London, so this is a rare event.

I started coaching him when he was 10. After a lesson he would go and sit down in a corner and not do anything for 15 minutes or so.

He is now 19 and is on the Olympic Pathway. He came in to make the old duffer who was his coach feel good by asking for a lesson. I gave him the full works, turned it into a tactical/assault lesson. After it was over I went into a corner and quietly died for 15 minutes.

I am still stiff and knackered 24 hours later. Time for bed with a glass of Laphroaig, a bit of Dowland lute music and a book that requires little mental effort.

1960. Fleabytes

Comment #136193 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #136177 by scottishgeologist

The points that I would really like to see the God botherers get to grips with are these:

Those areas, where the "supernatural" (which lets face it cannot be empirically proven) overlaps and influences the "natural"

There was a report on Pharyngula about a debate that PZ did with a particular creationist (I can't find the exact article). Essentially PZ set the topic of the debate as the evidence for creationism. Having done that he would not let his opponent criticise evolution, he kept pulling him back on the topic of the validity of creationism.

I was trying to make a similar point earlier on, though not particularly well. If you have two people arguing on a topic, each trying to prove a particular case then the burden of proof lies symmetrically (hah) on both of them.

If you have a debate where one side is trying to prove a case and the other is merely doubting the validity of the case, then then the burden of proof is strongly on the former and only weakly on the latter.

I have been pleased to see that being emphasised more as these theist-moths have gathered around the flame.

1961. Fleabytes

Comment #136181 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Comment #136174 by righton

I wouldnt suspect such a simple answer. Of course natural selection was working and a neurobiologist would be able to tell you a lot more about the current theories of how intelligence developed. It definitely would not be a simple "I dont know" response.

Accepted - it was such a ludicrous assertion that it needed a response. I should have left it to someone with a bit more clue.

1962. Fleabytes

Comment #136176 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Fencing icon

1963. Fleabytes

Comment #136167 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Comment #136157 by Dr Benway

As our time is not infinite, we ought to begin now. Let's hear your reason for not believing in:

Zeus

I think you may have missed this. Rarely do I say this, but in this case it may just make the point better than you

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/

1964. Fleabytes

Comment #136160 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #136150 by Quetzalcoatl

[Multiverse-sarcasm]Ha ha ha![/Multiverse-sarcasm]

Missed a tempo there Quetz - you should have gone for Aleph One sarcasm - much bigger than Anna's plain infinity.

1965. Fleabytes

Comment #136156 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #136133 by al-rawandi

As for the prefix "a" it means without. As in amelodic, asexual, asymetry.

Just to be a spelling pedant for the moment asymmetry. Spelt it consistently wrongly in an essay once and was deducted marks each time I did it, got a negative mark.

1966. Fleabytes

Comment #136152 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Comment #136118 by whatthe..?!

"No actually, the theist asserts that a particular deity exists, we merely doubt that assertion. The burden of proof therefore lies on the theist."

MPhil has answered this better than I.

The atheist claims that intelligence arose from mindless matter. Clearly this is inadequate.

Is this a materialist atheist, a New Age atheist, a Buddhist atheist?

If you are talking about someone who works in neurobiology and has some inklings about evolution then I suspect you might get the response that the how intelligence developed is currently unclear.

Of course you are going to tell us exactly how it happened.

1967. Fleabytes

Comment #136143 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Comment #136123 by Goldy

More like stomping on moles...

Hey Anna, a game we can agree on - wanna play "whack-a-mole"?

1968. Fleabytes

Comment #136136 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Comment #136099 by Bonzai

I notice there are a few new names on this thread, all Christians, all post only on this thread in a hit and run fashion.. I am thinking either this is the same person with different handles, or more likely, we are being raid by a group of young Christians, possibly Robertson's minions who have to fill some quotas.

If Al-Rawandi is trademarking "Fucktard" and "StalinIcon" then I want to trade mark "VoxDay'd" - defined as "The invasion of the theists"

1969. Fleabytes

Comment #136084 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #136072 by whatthe..?!

Surely this applies to the atheist as well? After all, it would be absurd to reject theism (in this case 'Christianity') because of a perceived lack of evidence for it if atheism also lacked evidence.

No actually, the theist asserts that a particular deity exists, we merely doubt the truth of the assertion. The burden of proof therefore lies on the theist.

1970. Fleabytes

Comment #136074 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Comment #136058 by annabanana

[sarcasm]Quetzcoatl, how dare you steal something of mine![/sarcasm]

You still have that StalinIcon?

1971. Fleabytes

Comment #135876 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 10:11 am

Comment #135866 by hello

..but I doubt very much that it was lack of evidence that led you to choose atheism.

How would you know? In fact Paula has revealed exactly how she came to be an atheist. Just backtrack through her posts to find out. You can also find similar stories from a number of people here.

Just for a change I am going to pre-empt irate_atheist - you are a sanctimonious fucktard.

1972. Fleabytes

Comment #135868 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #135857 by Paula

I won't be able to respond straightaway, since I have to go out now, but I'll be back in an hour or so and can't wait to read what you've given us.

Ooh, are you going to the dress shop? Matching shoes and handbag don't forget.

1973. Fleabytes

Comment #135851 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:48 am

I am a little disappointed with this thread. It is past 2000 now and I was expecting to see Paula in a posh frock.

I realise that she might be "fashionably late" but in the mean time it is a little dispiriting to have to put up with all these people in their sub-fusc attire trying to get a glimpse of the proceedings

1974. Fleabytes

Comment #135817 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #135811 by hello

How predictable are you? What do you friends say about you?

Folks - it isn't worth replying. This isn't a person, it is a bad implementation of the Eliza program produced by a theist.

It definitely fails the Turing test.

EDIT: do you think it gets its login name from the eponymous magazine?

1975. Fleabytes

Comment #135809 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #135802 by Storeo

bingo!

Just waiting for the Billy Goats Gruff to arrive.

Oh, and a George Carlin quotation: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

1976. Fleabytes

Comment #135794 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 9:14 am

Comment #135787 by kairos

Are you a boring positivist too?

Ah, this would be a rational argument would it.

What grades did you get in your courses?

1977. Fleabytes

Comment #135747 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 8:47 am

Comment #135739 by kairos

About time some of you looked 'rationality' up in a few good dictionaries including some philosophical views. If you insist on being a boring positivist forever then don't bother replying.

Ooh, bitchy.

About time you read a book on logic and learnt the difference between a valid argument and a sound one.

You might try looking up methodological naturalism at the same time.

1978. Fleabytes

Comment #135701 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 8:10 am

Comment #135698 by Artful_Dodger

Having said that, can you show me where David Robertson spoken in this kind of way? I defy you to.

I might, once you have answered my questions from posts 1863 and 1913.

1979. Fleabytes

Comment #135699 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 8:08 am

Comment #135686 by Dr Benway

A favorite cheater's trick: "Shakespeare isn't true in the same way as a news report. Some truth is more about feelings that facts."

Our use of the word "truth" in a range of contexts is a mere linguistic accident. Don't let this variable usage fool you into thinking there are different kinds of truth. You wouldn't think that there are different kinds of homosexuals simply because the word "fag" sometimes is used to refer to a cigarette, would you?

I recently read Susan Haack's book the "Philosophy of Logics". I had several instances of cogs turning and dropping into place generating "aha" moments.

One of these was in her discussions of theories of truth. What we seem to deem as true here is something that corresponds to the facts. The statement 'Snow is white' will only be accepted if and only if snow is white.

Another possibility is to look for coherence in a set of beliefs, to try and find a warranted maximally consistent set. This seems to be the limit that some people aspire to, they don't want to connect this set to anything empirical.

1980. Fleabytes

Comment #135690 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 7:57 am

Comment #135683 by Artful_Dodger

Don't you understand what a metaphor is? Or do you think that when the Bible says that the trees and mountains "clap their hands" that Christians take that literally too?

So now we move from symbolism to metaphor.

To extend what I said in post 1863

What else should I take to be symbolic or metaphorical in the bible, and what should I take to be literal? And whose authority should I take for this and why? And if there are multiple views as to what is literal and what is symbolic or metaphorical , which should I choose and why?

And if you think we are abusive you might want to look at
http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly

1981. Fleabytes

Comment #135665 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #135657 by irate_atheist

But, as you and I are well aware, the book itself is factually incorrect and self-contradictory. Hardly suggests the prior requirements are going to be met, does it?

It doesn't really matter though. You need to demonstrate the chain of reasoning starting at Lemma 1. I doubt that it is possible to get to Lemma 5.

1982. Fleabytes

Comment #135651 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #135640 by irate_atheist

Even before you consider this, you have to prove there is actually a god. A book of perhaps or perhaps not literal stories, made up by primitive men is not even worth considering as evidence.

It needs to be laid out as a proof

Lemma 1: The Universe was created
Lemma 2: The creator of the universe is an omnipotent, omniscient being
Lemma 3: This being, having created the universe continues to play a part in the development of the universe and all that is in it
Lemma 4: This being is specifically the deity of a particular sect of people living in one small section of one small planet circling around particular star out of 10¹¹ others in one galaxy out of 1.5*10¹¹ others.
Lemma 5:All of this is documented in a book written approximately 2000 years ago

All the lemmas need to be demonstrated in turn. Once this has been done then you may actually have some claim to the truth of your religion.

1983. Fleabytes

Comment #135628 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #135622 by Artful_Dodger

Along with many other Christians I have no problem with theistic evolution, and I do not agree that it drives a coach and horses through the teaching on the Fall. The story of Adam and Eve could be a story, a lierary creation, which illustrates the collective attitude of rebellion against God that humankind fell into with regard to God.

So it is symbolic, the bible story shouldn't be taken literally.

What else should I take to be symbolic in the bible, and what should I take to be literal? And whose authority should I take for this and why? And if there are multiple views as to what is literal and what is symbolic, which should I choose and why?

1984. Fleabytes

Comment #135623 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 6:41 am

Comment #135605 by mlearnedfriend

Don't think I'm indulging in thinking that just cos someone says that they believe in God then it's the reason they do anything - I was thinking more of specific scientists attributing what they did as to their faith (EG Michael Faraday).

Accepted - however one of the constant arguments, especially in the "flea" books is that Hitler, Mao, Stalin et al. were atheists (which is debatable, but no matter) and therefore their atrocities were committed because of their atheism. You must surely see the gap in the logic here.

Paula [1785] and others
you have said several times that Christians believe in people being utterly polluted - it's obviously a big bugbear with you. I think it would be farier to say that Christians believe that people are beautiful, but flawed.

It is a bugbear because it is used as a means of control, the only way out of being in a state of sin is through Christ, and the only way for that to happen is through a church of some kind.

If I was to modify this it would be to "beautiful but fallible", I don't accept the state of being inherently flawed.

The good news is that, of course there is redemption for that marred beauty.

Which means that I don't see the need for redemption. In fact I don't see being redeemed (OE - save from sin, error, or evil) as a useful concept.

1985. Fleabytes

Comment #135602 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #135593 by Artful_Dodger

Philip, can you show me some evidence of what you regard as his nastiness?

You need to go back to the "Wee Flea" posts. I am working at the moment so I haven't got time to help you get back to those.

I am not Philip (obviously), but I am speaking as someone who has been accused of being fundamentalist, irrational, gullible, having no sense of humour and a liar by DR

1986. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #135514 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #135491 by wooter

magnificent scent perception system in the nose. How does luck and chances can do that?

For fucks sake wooter, read what you are presented with. Evolution is not based on luck and chance. Selection is non-random. You have been told this and shown the evidence at least three times in the past two days.

You remind me of my kids when they were small. Going anywhere in the car you get "Are we there yet?", response "No, it should be about an hour". Two minutes later "Are we there yet?", response "Why don't you have a look at the countryside, we haven't been here before". Two minutes later "Are we there yet?". Repeat ad nauseum. Of course my kids grew out of this behaviour by the time they were 10 and used to work out what might be interesting on the journey, what toys and books to take to keep themselves occupied.

To paraphrase RD "Go read a book, you might like it".

1987. Fleabytes

Comment #135507 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 3:49 am

Comment #135489 by hungarianelephant

epeeist - Handforth, Mottram or Prestbury?

Wilmslow, couldn't afford Prestbury (not convinced I would want to live there anyway).

Comment #135492 by scottishgeologist

Mind you ,his "Owl Service" was a bit odd I thought - could never quite fathom it out.

You probably need to read the "Mabinogion" to see where he is coming from.

As for the "Folk Tales" book I mentioned, it has one of the greatest of British (actually Scottish) tales - the Black Bull of Norroway

'Seven lang years I served for thee;
The glassy hill I clamb for thee;
The bluidy shirt I wrang for thee;
And wilt thou not wauken and turn to me?'

He heard, and he turned to her.

1988. Fleabytes

Comment #135483 by epeeist on February 29, 2008 at 2:55 am

Comment #135461 by Goldy

Soon there's Fairy tales from the British Isles :-) Lots of good stories there - hidden cannibalism, bigamy etc....
Hope she grows up OK...

Lots of good things in these, I have "Folk Tales of the British Isles" from the Folio society that has some great stories.

If you want to tone it down a little you might try the Andrew Lang books. A little bowdlerised in places but still a good variety.

I used to live in the next village to Alan Garner, as she gets older you might like to try "The Weirdstone of Brisingamen" and "The Moon of Gomrath". Both significantly scary, but my kids liked them because they could associate with the places (all real) in the books. We also did a birthday party in the mines in Alderley Edge.

Oh, and to forestall future comments. Yes, Posh and Becks did live in Alderley Edge. And they were colloquially known as "Thick and Thin".

1989. Fleabytes

Comment #135417 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Comment #135182 by Goldy

Here you are, Brian. My mind is a veritable repository of useless facts - much of it not indexed but shoved willy-nilly into the synaptic shelves to gather dust...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_(people)

The subject of a Larry Niven, Stephen Barnes book "Dream Park"

Lots of cannibalism in Greek mythology - for a selection try http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/myths/tp/080707Cannibalism.htm

1990. Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

Comment #135110 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Comment #135095 by MPhil

Neither, I'm from Upper Franconia... Bayreuth to be exact. Maybe you have heard of it, it's the Richard Wagner-city, every year thousands of fans of classical music from around the world make a pilgrimage to the Wagner-Festspiele.

Ooh, any chance of tickets for a complete Ring cycle?

1991. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #135107 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Comment #135106 by JuxtaMonkey

LMAO...Earwig tea...mmmmmmmmm what was in this cosmic recipe? Char grilled fireworks are absolutely fabulous! I must say, we need to do that one more often...nothing like supper flinging from below your feet. It's like eating snow flakes! LMAOROTFL MmmUUUuuuHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha

You're not wooter in another guise are you?

1992. Fleabytes

Comment #134929 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 10:46 am

Comment #134919 by mlearnedfriend

But there does appear to be a set of belief systems for people on this thread (although epeeist is correct in saying that a rationalist viewpoint is not appropriate for a Buddhist) which is generally

But you would be wrong - http://www.mindandlife.org/dalai.lama.sfndc.html

But there are many situations in which we can measure an effect but don't know the reason. Which causes us to look for reason. Now you may claim that a theist viewpoint is going to limit someone really looking (hey, it's just God) but in the history of science it is often the belief that God has ordered things that makes scientific investigation not only possible but an imperitave (the more I find out, the more I will know about God).

This may have been so, but I think you would need to show us some evidence that scientists are now working in the spirit of "ad majorem Dei gloriam". And even so, I am not convinced that it has ever been fully so. Copernicus was an astrologer, Newton an alchemist. One might as well argue that their scientific work was to further their work in these areas.

What you may be committing is the fallacy of composition, assuming that because the person in question had one particular attribute then that applies to everything they do. One of the favourites here is to point out that Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all his monstrous crimes can be accounted for by an addiction to Brussel sprouts.

1993. Fleabytes

Comment #134904 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #134900 by Steve Zara

It is rare (unheard of?) that I have to correct epeeist, but..

Quote, Unquote.

Especially as that is what I said in post 1553 ;-)

Radio 3 and Radio 4. Two of the few gems in the British media. Even better now that you can do a "Listen Again" or download a podcast. Tonight Melvyn Bragg is discussing "King Lear", last week it was the Multiverse, next week Ada Lovelace.

1994. Fleabytes

Comment #134896 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #134891 by al-rawandi

Isn't the appropriate usage:

"Quote, Endquote"?

No, it is the title of a BBC Radio 4 quiz game. Relatively erudite, but quite amusing. There is another called "Round Britain Quiz" that is much more difficult.

1995. Fleabytes

Comment #134886 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 9:38 am

Comment #134882 by Richard Morgan

Can I just throw in a maladjusted wombat to the fray?

No you can't. She's your mother-in-law, you deal with her yourself.

Bugrit, a coffee down the nose moment.

1996. Fleabytes

Comment #134883 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 9:35 am

Comment #134867 by Steve Zara

Perhaps we are playing to help illustrate that this site is a clear-thinking oasis, with people discussing matters of science and reason in a way that will impress thousands of readers all around the world.

Amongst other things we are playing to show that atheists are not the miserable nihilists that some accuse them of being.

And since Mornington Crescent and "One song to the tune of another" don't seem have caught on, then how about another Radio 4 game "Quote, Unquote".

I will start with "Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

1997. Fleabytes

Comment #134846 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 9:03 am

Comment #134833 by irate_atheist

South Kenton?

Let's drop it if Anna doesn't know how to play.

How about "One song to the tune of another" instead.

You start - sing "What a friend I have in Jesus" to the tune of "For All the Cows"...

1998. Fleabytes

Comment #134822 by epeeist on February 28, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #134820 by Quetzalcoatl