Top 10 Questions from Richard’s Live Chat on Reddit

Nov 27, 2013

Here are what we've chosen as the Top 10 Questions, with accompanying answers, from Richard's live AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit on Nov 26, 2013!


Q1- As an expert on evolution, what do you feel is the strangest creature on Earth, or the one that just doesn't seem to make sense from an evolutionary standpoint yet continues to survive? (besides people)
A1- Nautilus (because of its pinhole camera eye). But that's just off the top of my head. I'd probably think of a better answer given more time (that is so often true!)

 

Q2- What is your favorite type of soup?
A2- Leek and potato

 

Q3- What is your greatest achievement?
A3- The Extended Phenotype.

 

Q4- Will you be treating us to another fireside reading of your hate mail in the near future?
A4- Yes, but not fireside. Instead, a young woman sits beside me playing sweet music on the cello. Film still being edited. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

 

Q5- Richard, who was the most frustrating person with whom you have debated evolution?
A5- Wendy Wright (Link to debate)

 

Q6- Upright walking preceded the development of a higher functioning brain in the evolution of man, contrary to what most would think. What is the best reasoning to convey to and  convince someone that walking in fact came first?
A6- Fossils. Australopithecus, from which genus we are almost certainly descended, walked upright and had a brain about the same size as a chimpanzee

 

Q7- What do you think should be changed about the american education system, more specifically the science classroom? Also, what age do you think schools should start teaching evolution in the classroom?
A7- I think evolution can, and should, be taught early. Certainly it makes little sense to teach any biology BEFORE teaching evolution because nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (Dobzhansky)

 

Q8- How do you feel now that memes, first discussed in your book The Selfish Gene, have become ubiquitous in internet culture?

A8- I'm pleased that the concept of meme has become widely understood, but the true meaning is a bit broader than the common understanding. Anything transmitted with high fidelity from brain to brain by imitation is a meme.

 

Q9-Mr. Dawkins, without going into much detail, I'm a creationist, and believe in a God.
What information could you provide or books would you refer me to to change my mind?

A9- Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True. And my own The Greatest Show on Earth.

 

Q10- Richard, are there any examples of non-human species acting religiously?

A10- Hard to know what that would mean. Elephants have been said to mourn their dead. Some people have semi-seriously suggested that domestic pets might feel religious towards the people who feed and care for them. Not very convincing, I'd abandon that train of thought!

 


continue to source article at

47 comments on “Top 10 Questions from Richard’s Live Chat on Reddit

  • 2
    Mark Lambert says:

    In reply to #1 by Mark Lambert:

    Wendy Wright!
    Yikes! The most alarming woman I have ever seen.

    Actually, in reply to myself, make that the most alarming person I’ve ever seen.



    Report abuse

  • 4
    hudson30189 says:

    Holy Jebus! I am thankful that there is bourbon in this world as it makes listening to such idiotic, delusional people more tolerable. If Richard seems cranky at times it’s because of such narrow minded creationist like Wendy Wright. We have a lot of work ahead of us if humankind is to evolve further or succumb to the apocalyptic nightmare that christians and muslims would love to bring about. Now as the two skunks said as they bowed their heads, “Let us spray!”



    Report abuse

  • 6
    melanie.t.doyle.5 says:

    So glad someone asked #1- I really wanted to ask that on the book tour but didn’t get the chance. Though I appreciate the atheist discussions, it’s nice to discuss evolution & nature once in a while. Always wanted to know who “cheated” Darwin and hung on longer than they should’ve. There must be other hangers on like coelacanths dwelling in uncharted depths (or so I’d like to imagine)



    Report abuse

  • 7
    melanie.t.doyle.5 says:

    Also question 10 is sort of fun, because when you think about it, we can project all sorts of meanings onto animal behavior. Anthropomorphizing and all. One could say “well my cat isn’t just zoning out while digesting her food- she’s achieving Nirvana through meditation”. I actually have a friend who took their dog to a psychic (yep!) and he and his girlfriend paid for this service! Which made me think, you know- you could actually project all kinds of things onto an animal’s thoughts and how can anyone prove you wrong? You could make your hound dog some kind of Nostradamus prophet and who can disprove it? What a brilliant scam! So yeah.. we’ve probably got all kinds of popes and saints and whatnot in that flock of pigeons in the park. So pay your respects to those guys- you never know who guards the gates of heaven…



    Report abuse

  • 8
    War Horse says:

    What a strange question about favorite foods (I had to look up ‘leeks and potato soup) , please dont ask him what color underwear he preferres…. LOLOL



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #7 by melanie.t.doyle.5:
    I have to admit I have asserted that my lovely Boston Terrier is ADD instead of acknowledging my bad training habits and her breed’s inclination toward perpetual puppydom. I also cannot imagine she does not genuinely love me. So goes this human tendency to adore mans’ best friend!



    Report abuse

  • 10
    muttley says:

    Well, I didn’t make the top ten, but I did get my question answered.

    My favourite was the rather tongue in cheek “would you like to take a moment to chat about our lord and savior jesus christ?”



    Report abuse

  • 11
    melanie.t.doyle.5 says:

    In reply to #9 by dsmith:

    In reply to #7 by melanie.t.doyle.5:
    I have to admit I have asserted that my lovely Boston Terrier is ADD instead of acknowledging my bad training habits and her breed’s inclination toward perpetual puppydom. I also cannot imagine she does not genuinely love me. So goes this human tendency to adore…

    I think that’s very universal. When my cat licked my tears as a child, my snotty siblings would say “he doesn’t really care that you’re crying! He just likes the salt!” However, I did see a great show on PBS’s Nature series called “Odd Couples” about whether or not animals have social bonds like humans do. It dealt with interspecies ‘friendships’. It had some very amazing footage; most of the animals were somewhat domesticated but were wild breeds (deer, tigers etc). It made a good case for animal emotional behaviour that has been dismissed previously.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #6 by melanie.t.doyle.5:

    So glad someone asked #1- I really wanted to ask that on the book tour but didn’t get the chance. Though I appreciate the atheist discussions, it’s nice to discuss evolution & nature once in a while. Always wanted to know who “cheated” Darwin and hung on longer than they should’ve. There must be oth…

    There might be a “usually does” but there is no “should’ve.” It depends on changes in environment and competition for resources and reproduction. Also, something may look like a fossil from the far past on the outside, but may be quite different on the inside. Any number of species that were their ancestors may be extinct even though they look the same. You can’t really find out because you can’t take a modern one back in a time machine and see if it could successfully breed. And, even if they could, Darwin does not get “cheated” by a species fitting an ecological niche, no matter how long.



    Report abuse

  • 17
    kenny77 says:

    I agree : just look at her eyes when she talks . She is staring into oblivion, not interacting with Richard Dawkins.
    You might as well be talking to a wall, except this wall talks back nonsense.

    In reply to #3 by ATomico:

    Wendy scares me, makes my skin crawl. big respect for tolerating her.



    Report abuse

  • 18
    Jonathan Peel says:

    For the good of mankind, and out of respect for everyone who reads this blog, please remove that Wendy Wright link from this page.
    I have just sat through the entire video, and I cannot find the words to describe how painful that was.

    RD, Well fucking done dude. I don’t know how you keep yourself together when talking to a person who responds like that.

    After watching that, I now, ironically, need the serenity prayer.



    Report abuse

  • 19
    kenny77 says:

    I’m sure the love your dog has for you is very real, even she can’t express it verbally.
    Think about it : love is a necessary part of social interactions, so it speaks to reason that social animals are capable of love.

    Love itself might be difficult to define, but I’m convinced it’s the same process going on in the brain, human or dog.
    It’s as genuine as ‘human’ love .

    In reply to #9 by dsmith:

    In reply to #7 by melanie.t.doyle.5:
    I have to admit I have asserted that my lovely Boston Terrier is ADD instead of acknowledging my bad training habits and her breed’s inclination toward perpetual puppydom. I also cannot imagine she does not genuinely love me. So goes this human tendency to adore…



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #17 by kenny77:

    I agree : just look at her eyes when she talks . She is staring into oblivion, not interacting with Richard Dawkins.
    You might as well be talking to a wall, except this wall talks back nonsense.

    In reply to #3 by ATomico:

    Wendy scares me, makes my skin crawl. big respect for tolerating her.

    She thinks she’s talking to the devil and she’s trying not to look him in the eye.

    It’s the fixed smile that I find really disturbing.



    Report abuse

  • 21
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #20 by Nitya:

    It’s the fixed smile that I find really disturbing.

    It’s probably the botox!
    I wonder if they use it on their brains as well?



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #21 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #20 by Nitya:

    It’s the fixed smile that I find really disturbing.

    It’s probably the botox!
    I wonder if they use it on their brains as well?

    She’s not deviating from her script, anyway.

    She gives the appearance of a great deal of Botox.



    Report abuse

  • 24
    Peter Grant says:

    Q10- Richard, are there any examples of non-human species acting religiously?

    A10- Hard to know what that would mean. Elephants have been said to mourn their dead. Some people have semi-seriously suggested that domestic pets might feel religious towards the people who feed and care for them. Not very convincing, I’d abandon that train of thought!

    Pigeons can be superstitious.



    Report abuse

  • 26
    paulalovescats says:

    In reply to #2 by Mark Lambert:

    In reply to #1 by Mark Lambert:

    Wendy Wright!
    Yikes! The most alarming woman I have ever seen.
    hahahaha, that hair! Those condescending chuckles!
    Actually, in reply to myself, make that the most alarming person I’ve ever seen.



    Report abuse

  • I followed the link to Professor Dawkins’ debate with Wendy Wright and I must say the she has an unfortunate surname. I applaud the good Professor for his profound patience. I must say I would have been sore tempted to bitch slap her in that passive a aggressive grin of hers.



    Report abuse

  • 28
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #25 by paulalovescats:

    My cat doesn’t worship me! He expects me to worship and serve him!

    Mine worships and prostrates herself for the Sun and radiators.



    Report abuse

  • I’ve pasted this comment in from another thread on this site because it seems relevant to Question 10, and maybe, someone may know something more.

    According to Volker Sommer primates of various kinds act ritually which he defines as a rudimentary religious activity. For example, he describes how chimpanzees (I think) ate ants in small numbers and he believes since they would only eat, say 6 or 8 at a time, he concluded (I’m simplifying, obviously) that it was not dietary. Furthermore other groups of the same species did not eat ants at all.

    So you get the general idea. He’s written several books, of which I’ve read … er none, but I did catch an interview with him on the radio a few weeks ago which was fascinating. Anyone else know anything about Volker Sommer and could recommend which book to read?

    I’ve also found this blog by someone who listened to the same interview.



    Report abuse

  • 31
    markfriedman28 says:

    I was surprised. But I think I understand why he chose “The Extended Phenotype” as his greatest accomplishment (to date). It is such a powerful, creative and unexpected extension of “The Selfish Gene.” But I would have listed one of two other books: “The Ancestor’s Tale,” an historic masterwork worth the patience to read completely. And, of course, “The God Delusion,” which will stand the test of time as the definitive refutation of supernaturalism. (I buy extra copies of the “The God Delusion” and leave them in hotel rooms.)



    Report abuse

  • So what’s Wendy Wright been up to recently?

    Still trying to recover the shreds of her dignity since her interview with Prof. Dawkins, I see.



    Report abuse

  • 34
    bluebird says:

    Wendy Wright

    Had the sound off when I started the video – lol, reminds of RD and Ted Haggard’s “MPython” interview. Moreover, substitute any gobbledygook in lieu of interviewees’ talk, to make it palatable.



    Report abuse

  • 38
    Cairsley says:

    Professor Dawkins was amazingly patient and generous in his chat with Ms Wright, and he presented the evolutionary position with his usual clarity and expertise. What I kept waiting for, whenever Ms Wright spoke of intelligent design by a creator and of an immaterial human soul, was that he ask her: Where is the evidence (for a creator or an immaterial soul)? That was something on which the good professor, who referred to ample evidence for the position he represented, could have got her to practise herself what she kept all too unreasonably demanding of him. But perhaps he thought it better tactics not to press matters so aggressively on the spiritual, divine front, seeing more good in trying to persuade Ms Wright to take a more favorable view of biological evolution, as some other Christians do.

    It was amusing that Ms Wright did not appreciate the irony of her obvious sympathy with right-wing politics and her horror of a society based on Darwinian principles. It would have been interesting to hear how she would answer if she were asked who would look after a brain-damaged pauper in a society that provides no public health insurance. Whereas she rather repetitively stated that there needs to be more openness to other views in the teaching of science (a rather incoherent statement if she was suggesting that nonscientific views like her own should be included in the teaching of science), she showed herself to be not at all open to the very interesting view implicit in Professor Dawkins’s own clear renunciation of Darwinianism as a basis for human society and morality. But we must not expect too much of her; for Ms Wright morality is a given of faith, whereas for Professor Dawkins morality is a product of reason, something societies figure out over time.



    Report abuse

  • 41
    mikfrmoz says:

    Slightly off topic here. But i’d love richard to write a book or tv series along the line of ” what purpose half a wing, half a sting, half so many things.” Elaborating on transitional phases and perhaps speculating on environmental pressures that have shaped the abundant diversity we see around us. Come on Dawkins team up with Attenborough and do for biology what Sagan did with cosmos for astronomy. It would be facinating and valuable. Imagine turning so many young minds on to how the world really works!



    Report abuse

  • 42
    boxinghris says:

    As someone who has sought to establish how/why we came to exist, and who leans towards a creative intelligence despite understanding how this isn’t something which MUST be true, I do find it frustrating at times to find objective argument/evidence either way because of religion, and the way that individuals become indoctrinated into a religion to such a degree that rational arguments elude them.

    On the other hand, atheists such as Richard Dawkins seem so consumed with their hatred and contempt of religion that their objectivity is distorted, and a rational discussion is impossible.

    Yes, atheists will confidently declare that science is totally objective, immune to the prejudices and bias of any individual, yet obviously this is not the case as even objective evidence/results are subject to subjective interpretation.

    Personally I have seen/read no evidence or explanation which demonstrates the advancement of any species by genetic mutation. It is argued by creationists that genetic mutations do not add information to the gene-pool, but of course this is not correct. However, what is demonstrated in practice is that when extra information is added, it is detrimental such as in Downs Syndrome, and does not result in an individual who would be attractive to a mate.

    So, in theory we can demonstrate that mutations can add information to the gene pool, but in practice this information would not be added to a community as the extra information equates to a far less sexually attractive mate.

    The argument put forward by Dawkins appears to be that however unlikely or rare mutations might be, over the course of millions of years even the slightest, most unlikely occurrences will have major consequences.

    This sounds perfectly feasible in theory, but again in practice I’ve seen/read nothing to suggest it would be a reality.

    Dawkins also explains that with an evolutionary jump such as flight, 10% flight is still better than no capacity for flight.
    Again, fine in theory but for flight an animal would need wings, and wings which do not provide a complete ability to fly are a liability, as they would slow that animal down allowing predators an easy meal.
    The only examples we see of animals with flightless wings are those which comply with the ‘use it or lose it’ label, that is to say they could probably fly at one time but because of an increase in size (emus, ostriches) or adaption to water where food is possibly more plentiful (penguins) their wings ave become redundant.

    Of course, if we assume that there cannot possibly be any intelligent creator, evolution MUST by default be the only realistic explanation, so all the reservations I refer to are null and void, as the fact we exist proves these reservations were overcome.

    From my viewpoint then, the explanation of how/why we came into existence is not satisfied by Atheism, as the question to them is not one of which is the correct explanation, a creative force or purely physical consequences of natural law. To them, the creative force is removed from the equation altogether as there is no evidence of one, it’s akin to the orbiting tea-pot, or goblins, so the question simply becomes ‘how did life originate and evolve…..on it’s own’.

    Without engaging in the whole empirism vs rationalism argument, as already mentioned I’m unconvinced of the explanations made by Dawkins and other dyed in the wool atheists, though I do share his/their objections to organised religions which cause nothing but conflict, bigotry and intolerance worldwide.

    I believe in a creative force which may well have ‘evolved’ over millions or billions of years. or may have always existed, but whether this force had ever made itself known to us wee humans I’ve no idea. The bible is full of wisdom and remarkably insightful prose, but for me it is inspired by a belief in a God, by man, with the contradictions that are most definitely human and flawed.

    Was Jesus the ‘son of God’? I doubt it, but assuming he existed, was he the most remarkable example of a human being ever to have existed, and someone we could all aspire to, far more than the sadly departed Nelson Mandela?
    For me, certainly.

    The irony is that Jesus seemed to spend a great proportion of his life criticising the ‘scribes and pharisees’, the religious zealots who constantly pointed out how he wasn’t complying with ‘scripture’ and ‘the law’, yet we now have organisations and individuals professing to be Christians who are even more fundamentalists than those who persecuted the guy they profess to follow.

    But I digress, for me then there is no doubt that an intelligent force does exist, despite Dawkins asserting that any diversion from seeking to explain everything by natural, evolutionary process is ‘lazy’.
    It is not a belief in a ‘God of the gaps’, it is an examination of the evidence and explanations, concluding that it’s not the gaps that need filling but the whole foundation which is built on unfounded assumption, the assumption that no matter how preposterously unlikely those foundations must be, they MUST be the explanation as there is no alternative except for a bearded guy sat on a cloud.

    Not so. Playing Devil’s advocate, intelligence has ‘evolved’ on AT LEAST one planet among billions of billions in a relatively short period of time, yet this is only carbon based intelligence which we can measure and comprehend. Considering String Theory, and the multiverse, every single possibility imaginable must exist, so there will definitely exist universes which were created by a ‘god’, just as there will be universes which came to be through pure chance and then natural forces.

    Getting back to the core of my post then, it is difficult to find anything on the web which doesn’t have pro-creationist or pro-evolutionary spin when trying to find objective information on various subjects, an example being if you search for something like ‘problems with evolution’, or ‘does mutation increase genetic information’. Invariably you will find yourself directed to creationist sites, which I instantly dismiss as hopelessly biased, though the opposite is true is you search for ‘contradictions in the bible’ where again, the information given is hopelessly biased and useless unless cross referenced to the point you lose all sense of perspective.



    Report abuse

  • 43
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #41 by boxinghris:

    On the other hand, atheists such as Richard Dawkins seem so consumed with their hatred and contempt of religion that their objectivity is distorted, and a rational discussion is impossible.

    Understanding evolutionary origins has NOTHING to do with religions in a purely scientific discussion. The contempt for religions comes from observing the actions of their followers.

    Yes, atheists will confidently declare that science is totally objective, immune to the prejudices and bias of any individual, yet obviously this is not the case as even objective evidence/results are subject to subjective interpretation.

    This is a strawman argument! Scientists can be biased or prejudiced, but scientific methodology is designed to counter this by using a wider review of studies by independent experts.

    Evolution has nothing to do with atheism per se. Plenty of Christians understand and accept evolutionary science.

    Personally I have seen/read no evidence or explanation which demonstrates the advancement of any species by genetic mutation.

    Then you have not studied the subject of genetics. The information is there for those who look.

    It is argued by creationists that genetic mutations do not add information to the gene-pool, but of course this is not correct. However, what is demonstrated in practice is that when extra information is added, it is detrimental such as in Downs Syndrome, and does not result in an individual who would be attractive to a mate.

    This is a misunderstanding of “mutations”. Most mutations are neutral or detrimental, but occasionally by chance beneficial ones arise. Downs syndrome is a very specific form of mutation with a whole extra chromosome, not just a modification to an individual gene . As I said many mutations are detrimental – leading to the death or disability of the individuals carrying them – and their removal from the next generation of the population by natural selection.

    The argument put forward by Dawkins appears to be that however unlikely or rare mutations might be, over the course of millions of years even the slightest, most unlikely occurrences will have major consequences.

    That is correct- and it is confirmed thousands of times that SOME mutations MAY have major consequences.

    This sounds perfectly feasible in theory, but again in practice I’ve seen/read nothing to suggest it would be a reality.

    You clearly need to study the subject.

    Dawkins also explains that with an evolutionary jump such as flight, 10% flight is still better than no capacity for flight.

    You really should read some biologist’s books on living systems instead of repeating this creationist rubbish! There are numerous related species of Flying squirrel – and they have clear a sister relationship and a common ancestor with tree squirrels.

    Again, fine in theory but for flight an animal would need wings, and wings which do not provide a complete ability to fly are a liability, as they would slow that animal down allowing predators an easy meal.

    Evolution modifies existing structures a little bit at a time over vast time scales. The evolution of flight in birds -from feathered dinosaurs, in bats from changes in the arms and hands of mammals, and in flying-fish from modification of fins, is well known to those who study the biology. There are many examples of species in transition in various genera of living organisms, as well as in fossils.

    In the case of flight, showing: balancing, extended jumping, gliding, and powered flight.

    Of course, if we assume that there cannot possibly be any intelligent creator, evolution MUST by default be the only realistic explanation,

    Regardless of if there was a creator of the universe or not, the evidence for evolution – which is an observable on-going process in organisms which breed fast enough for humans to observe several generations, is overwhelming. Only the scientifically ignorant and uneducated dispute it.

    ‘how did life originate

    Life originated by a process called abiogenesis, for which there is strong, but not yet fully conclusive evidence. It arose from chemical processes about 3.5 billion years ago

    and evolve…..on it’s own’.

    Evolution is the process of the development and diversification of species naturally selected as best fitted to their environments over the millions of years since the first life formed. All present day life is descended on the Phylogenetic tree of life from a common ancestor which is known as LUCA

    But I digress, for me then there is no doubt that an intelligent force does exist, despite Dawkins asserting that any diversion from seeking to explain everything by natural, evolutionary process is ‘lazy’.

    “God-did-it-by-magic” is undoubtedly lazy. The origins of the Big-Bang at the beginning of our universe is uncertain. The evidence of evolution on Earth over millions of years is irrefutable.

    It is not a belief in a ‘God of the gaps’, it is an examination of the evidence and explanations,

    If you have scientific evidence please present it! Many have made claims, None have produced credible evidence for gods or against evolution so far!

    All they demonstrate, is their ignorance of the readily available evidence of biological evolution, showing the gaps are in their own knowledge due to a lack of study.



    Report abuse

  • 44
    Sajjeev Antony says:

    Ref. Q5. I just saw that long interview. Richard Dawkins is showing incredible patience and respect (which is rather uncharacteristic of him) towards this rigid and supercilious woman. She keeps going in circles throughout this interview, her subtle bitchiness reminiscent of Miranda in “Devil Wears Prada” (but without Miranda’s practical intelligence).

    I sometimes criticize Richard Dawkins for his occasional impatience in debates but here he is a picture of serenity and control. This was obviously very difficult for him, to stay calm and respectful for more than ONE HOUR while this lady laughed at him, discounted his views, poked fun them, it seemed that her real agenda was to incense him. (I would have flipped my lid in the first 15 minutes.)

    Congratulations, Prof. Dawkins! May others learn from your poise.



    Report abuse

  • 45
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #41 by boxinghris:

    Considering String Theory, and the multiverse, every single possibility imaginable must exist, so there will definitely exist universes which were created by a ‘god’,

    That doesn’t follow.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 46
    Red Dog says:

    In reply to #44 by mmurray:

    In reply to #41 by boxinghris:

    Considering String Theory, and the multiverse, every single possibility imaginable must exist, so there will definitely exist universes which were created by a ‘god’,

    That doesn’t follow.

    This is a common fallacy. “Every possible world” doesn’t mean every crazy idea you can think up. It means any possible world given the laws of physics and other natural laws. Of course the interesting thing is even those laws can be different in different universes but that doesn’t mean that anything you can imagine would be a world, not by a longshot. Even those laws of physics still have constraints about possible variations from our universe, in fact most of the alternatives would probably end up being fairly boring, with no life possible.



    Report abuse

  • 47
    Sue Blue says:

    In reply to #4 by hudson30189:

    Holy Jebus! I am thankful that there is bourbon in this world as it makes listening to such idiotic, delusional people more tolerable. If Richard seems cranky at times it’s because of such narrow minded creationist like Wendy Wright. We have a lot of work ahead of us if humankind is to evolve fur…

    One of the things I admire most about Richard, besides his scientific talents and tireless efforts on behalf of reason, is his ability to remain calm and relatively polite in the face of the most withering stupidity, the most egregious willful ignorance, and the absolutely infuriating obfuscation of the religious nuts he encounters. If I had to endure five minutes of Wendy Wright I would have probably been arrested for assault. Watching that interview, I wanted to throw my laptop across the room! I couldn’t even make it all the way through, and I only watched it. Richard had to actually talk to that waste of space.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.