Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex") - Page 18

Steersman · Yesterday, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steersman:
Not particularly useful to have a whole bunch of ad hoc and quite inconsistent definitions for the sexes created for different applications.

Hard disagree on this one, I'd say the sorting criteria depend on what you're trying to do.

That's the problem that the transloonie nutcases are creating by redefining "male" and "female" as genders and gender identities. You want to follow suit? One joker to another?

But maybe it would help to realize that it's the objectively quantifiable criteria that are the tickets, that the names we attach to various collections of them are largely irrelevant, if not red herrings the size of Moby Dick?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

For the sake of discussions about sporting leagues, I'd adopt Rolfe's definition which hinges on functional SRY genes and receptors; fairness and safety require that we segregate those who undergo male puberty.

Sure, more or less. But, again, it's less the definition than the underlying trait. Why I've argued that the subtext of the entry requirements for women's sports should be no XY need apply; SRY, not SRY.

Pretty much all that those who have dicks, or who had them have that gene; probably 98% if not more. If there's a question then do the genetic analysis. Easy peasy ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n

For the sake of discussions about sexual reproduction (like this one) I'd use different criteria based on reproductive potentiality/capacity.

Aye, there's the rub. WHICH criteria? Any that have even the least passing resemblance - past, present, or future - to any traits that might have anything to do with actually producing [habitually, present tense indefinite] gametes of one sort or the other? What a joke.

There's absolutely diddly-squat about any "potentiality" in ANY of the biological definitions that are endorsed by no end of credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, biological journals, biologists, and philosophers of biology.

What you're talking about, what Hilton and her partners in crime are talking about is family resemblances and polythetic categories. Which boil down into spectra. Bravo, bravo ...

See Regenmortel JPG:

Originally Posted by d4m10n

For the sake of discussions about traditional Korean spas and other sex-segregated nude spaces, I'd go with external body habitus.

That's a bit vague; methinks you need to learn how to call a spade an effen shovel. Try voicing, even mentally for starters, the phrase, "one set of spaces for vagina-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof, and another set of such spaces for penis-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof". Gets easier with practice ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Sent from my Fathon FQ2 using Tapatalk

You must have a lot of spare cellphones floating about ...

d4m10n · Yesterday, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Steersman

That's the problem that the transloonie nutcases are creating by redefining "male" and "female" as genders and gender identities.

I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues.

Originally Posted by Steersman

But maybe it would help to realize that it's the objectively quantifiable criteria that are the tickets...

Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit Michfest^WP.

Originally Posted by Steersman

Why I've argued that the subtext of the entry requirements for women's sports should be no XY need apply; SRY, not SRY.

People with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here.

Originally Posted by Steersman

Aye, there's the rub. WHICH criteria?

Already asked and answered.

Originally Posted by Steersman

There's absolutely diddly-squat about any "potentiality" in ANY of the biological definitions that are endorsed by no end of credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, biological journals, biologists, and philosophers of biology.

None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do.

Sent from my Emperor Vectre using Tapatalk

Steersman · Yesterday, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues.

Haven't got a clue what you're getting at ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit Michfest^WP.

So EFFEN what?

You're missing the point or refusing to engage with it. Use the criteria, ditch the definitions - at least those incompatible with the biological ones.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

People with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here.

WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy? Methinks you too need to learn how to read past the first sentence in a paragraph ...

Quote:

In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father.

Cause of the balance seems genetically murky.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Already asked and answered.

LoL. "Because the Bible tells me so" ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n

None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do.

So effen WHAT?

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a...n_doyle_134512

But lots of people champion principles but then balk and turn turtle when they find themselves hoist by their own petards. You & PZ for examples ...

d4m10n · Yesterday, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Steersman

Haven't got a clue what you're getting at

This isn't the thread where you can reasonably expect people to reply on trans issues, because they know what happens to off topic posts.

Originally Posted by Steersman

WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy?

Why bother mentioning karyotype if you know it's not the relevant criterion?

Originally Posted by Steersman

"Because the Bible tells me so"

You asked for my criteria in "discussions about sexual reproduction," I've already told you that upthread.

Originally Posted by Steersman

So effen WHAT?

So I've concluded that you've misunderstood what they were trying to say. Had they really meant what you think they do, we'd see evidence of that meaning in their usage (e.g. when they talk about pre-pubertal males).

Steersman · Yesterday, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

This isn't the thread where you can reasonably expect people to reply on trans issues, because they know what happens to off topic posts.

My original comment was about you making a "whole bunch of ad hoc and quite inconsistent definitions". And I said that that was like the transloonies redefining "male" and "female". So when you said "discussing such attempts", it was not at all clear which group of definitions you were referring to.

But, assuming it's the transloonies' efforts you have in mind, I'll probably make a comment thereon in the transwoman thread. Though I've already done so somewhere here or there in the context of a Matt Walsh tweet about Merriam-Webster's (re)definitions of the terms.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why bother mentioning karyotype if you know it's not the relevant criterion?

There were two paragraphs there talking to that point. Don't think you made it much past the first sentence ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You asked for my criteria in "discussions about sexual reproduction," I've already told you that upthread.

And I provided 3 paragraphs showing why that "argument", and a related and contradictory one, were so much anti-scientific claptrap.

Try learning to read and think about all of what is being put on the table in response to your comments.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

So I've concluded that you've misunderstood what they were trying to say. Had they really meant what you think they do, we'd see evidence of that meaning in their usage (e.g. when they talk about pre-pubertal males).

You INFERRED that. Lots of other reasons other than those you've given why other people aren't running around concluding and asserting that the prepubescent are sexless.

I've given a whole bunch of solid reasons for and frequent comments justifying that conclusion of mine, which Griffiths endorses - mostly related to the concept of intensional definitions - which no one here has been willing to address.

Don't see you as a particularly intellectually honest or careful interlocutor there mate.

d4m10n · Yesterday, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Steersman

Don't see you as a particularly intellectually honest or careful interlocutor there mate.

I don't care what you think about me, and you're not even addressing my argument.

Once again, my argument is this: You don't have examples of other people refusing to call infants "male" or post-menopausal women "female" and so it appears you are using those words in a manner entirely unique to yourself.

Words are for communication with other people though.

If you cannot find examples of lexicographers or scientists using these words as you do, you might should stop and ask why.

Steersman · Yesterday, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't care what you think about me, and you're not even addressing my argument.

Of course I have - several times, some 18 times in fact; you're just not listening.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=517

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=409

Difficult to do that if you have your fingers in your ears or your head in the sand ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Once again, my argument is this: You don't have examples of other people refusing to call infants "male" or post-menopausal women "female" and so it appears you are using those words in a manner entirely unique to yourself.

So effen WHAT?

The issue is:

) is the definition for "bachelor" an intensional definition or not? (hint for those slow on the uptake: yes);
) is the definition for "teenager" an intensional definition or not? (ditto);
) is the definition for "male" an intensional definition or not? (ditto);
) do intensional definitions specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership or not? (ditto);
) is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the category "male" stated to be "produces [habitually] sperm" or not? (ditto);
) do prepubescent XYers produce sperm or not? (hint for those slow on the uptake: NO);
) does it logically follow or not that prepubescent XYers are therefore NOT males? (hint for those slow on the uptake: YES);

Further such hints:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extens...al_definitions
https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

It's totally irrelevant if no one else reaches that conclusion; if the premises are true then the conclusion inexorably follows.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Words are for communication with other people though.

Sure - that's why we have dictionaries. Which you refuse to use.

Think you can make up your own; pull something out of your arse and expect everyone else has to stand up and salute it. What a joke.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you cannot find examples of lexicographers or scientists using these words as you do, you might should stop and ask why.

Totally irrelevant. Millions of ways of using words; some more accurate than others, very few of which have examples illustrating such uses. Analogously, probably a hundred ways of rearranging the tokens in "2+3=5", probably only a few of which are mathematically true.

The issue is the principles involved. Which you clearly haven't a clue about, and refuse to learn about.

Matthew Best · Yesterday, 11:39 PM

Listen - Steersman is right and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. If you can't get that simple idea into your thick skull, then I don't know what.

Steersman · Today, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Listen - Steersman is right and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. If you can't get that simple idea into your thick skull, then I don't know what.

Do please show me, my Master, the errors of my ways. Let me sit at your feet to gather your pearls of wisdom. ....

I didn't create those definitions or principles behind them, I didn't cut them out of whole cloth or pull them out of my nether regions; I'm only using them to draw some apparently irrefutable conclusions. If you don't like them then you have to demonstrate that those definitions and principles are null and void.

But that exchange reminds me of a classic and rather damning passage from an article at The Atlantic - How America Lost Its Mind - by Kurt Andersen, the author of Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire, which is basically a synopsis of the book:

Quote:

A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness. “Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn’t true. Or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books—they’re all fact, no heart … Face it, folks, we are a divided nation … divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart … Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen—the gut.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...s-mind/534231/

Rather disconcerting to see on a "Skeptics Forum" - quote, unquote - many who are clearly "no fans of dictionaries and reference books", who think they're "elitist", who "don't trust books" ...

Y'all spend a rather large amount of money supporting "higher education" - much of which you're rather badly served by. But to throw it all overboard because what is worthwhile in it doesn't comport with your vanities, delusions, folk-biology, and scientific illiteracy seems rather remarkably short-sighted, like cutting off your noses to spite your faces. To say the least ...

porch · Today, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by Steersman

If a guy with a vasectomy gets it reversed then he's changed his state from sexless to male. As for "habitual condom use", male then not-male then male then not .... Like being "hungry" at breakfast, full shortly thereafter, hungry before lunch, full thereafter, etc., etc., etc.

I'm just gonna drop this quote here and give appropriate thanks for your furthering of scientific literacy.

Matthew Best · Today, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Steersman

Do please show me, my Master, the errors of my ways.

What errors? It's the rest of the world that's making errors - you are infallible.

theprestige · Today, 06:09 AM

If you meet an ignoramus, you've met an ignoramus. If everyone you meet is an ignoramus...

Yesterday, 01:10 PM	#682
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,212	Originally Posted by Steersman That's the problem that the transloonie nutcases are creating by redefining "male" and "female" as genders and gender identities. I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues. Originally Posted by Steersman But maybe it would help to realize that it's the objectively quantifiable criteria that are the tickets... Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit Michfest^WP. Originally Posted by Steersman Why I've argued that the subtext of the entry requirements for women's sports should be no XY need apply; SRY, not SRY. People with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here. Originally Posted by Steersman Aye, there's the rub. WHICH criteria? Already asked and answered. Originally Posted by Steersman There's absolutely diddly-squat about any "potentiality" in ANY of the biological definitions that are endorsed by no end of credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, biological journals, biologists, and philosophers of biology. None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do. Sent from my Emperor Vectre using Tapatalk
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 01:16 PM.

Yesterday, 02:09 PM	#683
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207	Originally Posted by d4m10n I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues. Haven't got a clue what you're getting at ... Originally Posted by d4m10n Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit Michfest^WP. So EFFEN what? You're missing the point or refusing to engage with it. Use the criteria, ditch the definitions - at least those incompatible with the biological ones. Originally Posted by d4m10n People with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here. WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy? Methinks you too need to learn how to read past the first sentence in a paragraph ... Quote: In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father. Cause of the balance seems genetically murky. Originally Posted by d4m10n Already asked and answered. LoL. "Because the Bible tells me so" ... Originally Posted by d4m10n None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do. So effen WHAT? https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a...n_doyle_134512 But lots of people champion principles but then balk and turn turtle when they find themselves hoist by their own petards. You & PZ for examples ...
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207

Yesterday, 02:45 PM	#684
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,212	Originally Posted by Steersman Haven't got a clue what you're getting at This isn't the thread where you can reasonably expect people to reply on trans issues, because they know what happens to off topic posts. Originally Posted by Steersman WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy? Why bother mentioning karyotype if you know it's not the relevant criterion? Originally Posted by Steersman "Because the Bible tells me so" You asked for my criteria in "discussions about sexual reproduction," I've already told you that upthread. Originally Posted by Steersman So effen WHAT? So I've concluded that you've misunderstood what they were trying to say. Had they really meant what you think they do, we'd see evidence of that meaning in their usage (e.g. when they talk about pre-pubertal males).
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 02:52 PM.

Yesterday, 07:49 PM	#685
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207	Originally Posted by d4m10n This isn't the thread where you can reasonably expect people to reply on trans issues, because they know what happens to off topic posts. My original comment was about you making a "whole bunch of ad hoc and quite inconsistent definitions". And I said that that was like the transloonies redefining "male" and "female". So when you said "discussing such attempts", it was not at all clear which group of definitions you were referring to. But, assuming it's the transloonies' efforts you have in mind, I'll probably make a comment thereon in the transwoman thread. Though I've already done so somewhere here or there in the context of a Matt Walsh tweet about Merriam-Webster's (re)definitions of the terms. Originally Posted by d4m10n Why bother mentioning karyotype if you know it's not the relevant criterion? There were two paragraphs there talking to that point. Don't think you made it much past the first sentence ... Originally Posted by d4m10n You asked for my criteria in "discussions about sexual reproduction," I've already told you that upthread. And I provided 3 paragraphs showing why that "argument", and a related and contradictory one, were so much anti-scientific claptrap. Try learning to read and think about all of what is being put on the table in response to your comments. Originally Posted by d4m10n So I've concluded that you've misunderstood what they were trying to say. Had they really meant what you think they do, we'd see evidence of that meaning in their usage (e.g. when they talk about pre-pubertal males). You INFERRED that. Lots of other reasons other than those you've given why other people aren't running around concluding and asserting that the prepubescent are sexless. I've given a whole bunch of solid reasons for and frequent comments justifying that conclusion of mine, which Griffiths endorses - mostly related to the concept of intensional definitions - which no one here has been willing to address. Don't see you as a particularly intellectually honest or careful interlocutor there mate.
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207

Yesterday, 08:03 PM	#686
d4m10n Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 9,212	Originally Posted by Steersman Don't see you as a particularly intellectually honest or careful interlocutor there mate. I don't care what you think about me, and you're not even addressing my argument. Once again, my argument is this: You don't have examples of other people refusing to call infants "male" or post-menopausal women "female" and so it appears you are using those words in a manner entirely unique to yourself. *Words are for communication with other people* though.** If you cannot find examples of lexicographers or scientists using these words as you do, you might should stop and ask why.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; Yesterday at 08:06 PM.

Yesterday, 11:09 PM	#687
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207	Originally Posted by d4m10n I don't care what you think about me, and you're not even addressing my argument. Of course I have - several times, some 18 times in fact; you're just not listening. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=517 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=409 Difficult to do that if you have your fingers in your ears or your head in the sand ... Originally Posted by d4m10n Once again, my argument is this: You don't have examples of other people refusing to call infants "male" or post-menopausal women "female" and so it appears you are using those words in a manner entirely unique to yourself. So effen WHAT? The issue is: ) is the definition for "bachelor" an intensional definition or not? (hint for those slow on the uptake: yes); ) is the definition for "teenager" an intensional definition or not? (ditto); ) is the definition for "male" an intensional definition or not? (ditto); ) do intensional definitions specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership or not? (ditto); ) is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the category "male" stated to be "produces [habitually] sperm" or not? (ditto); ) do prepubescent XYers produce sperm or not? (hint for those slow on the uptake: NO); ) does it logically follow or not that prepubescent XYers are therefore NOT males? (hint for those slow on the uptake: YES); Further such hints: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extens...al_definitions https://www.lexico.com/definition/male It's totally irrelevant if no one else reaches that conclusion; if the premises are true then the conclusion inexorably follows. Originally Posted by d4m10n *Words are for communication with other people* though. Sure - that's why we have dictionaries. Which you refuse to use. Think you can make up your own; pull something out of your arse and expect everyone else has to stand up and salute it. What a joke. Originally Posted by d4m10n** If you cannot find examples of lexicographers or scientists using these words as you do, you might should stop and ask why. Totally irrelevant. Millions of ways of using words; some more accurate than others, very few of which have examples illustrating such uses. Analogously, probably a hundred ways of rearranging the tokens in "2+3=5", probably only a few of which are mathematically true. The issue is the principles involved. Which you clearly haven't a clue about, and refuse to learn about.
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207

Yesterday, 11:39 PM	#688
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,372	Listen - Steersman is right and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. If you can't get that simple idea into your thick skull, then I don't know what.

Today, 12:55 AM	#689
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207	Originally Posted by Matthew Best Listen - Steersman is right and everyone else in the entire world is wrong. If you can't get that simple idea into your thick skull, then I don't know what. Do please show me, my Master, the errors of my ways. Let me sit at your feet to gather your pearls of wisdom. .... I didn't create those definitions or principles behind them, I didn't cut them out of whole cloth or pull them out of my nether regions; I'm only using them to draw some apparently irrefutable conclusions. If you don't like them then you have to demonstrate that those definitions and principles are null and void. But that exchange reminds me of a classic and rather damning passage from an article at The Atlantic - How America Lost Its Mind - by Kurt Andersen, the author of Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire, which is basically a synopsis of the book: Quote: A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness. “Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn’t true. Or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books—they’re all fact, no heart … Face it, folks, we are a divided nation … divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart … Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen—the gut.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...s-mind/534231/ Rather disconcerting to see on a "Skeptics Forum" - quote, unquote - many who are clearly "no fans of dictionaries and reference books", who think they're "elitist", who "don't trust books" ... Y'all spend a rather large amount of money supporting "higher education" - much of which you're rather badly served by. But to throw it all overboard because what is worthwhile in it doesn't comport with your vanities, delusions, folk-biology, and scientific illiteracy seems rather remarkably short-sighted, like cutting off your noses to spite your faces. To say the least ...
Steersman Thinker Join Date: Jul 2022 Posts: 207

Today, 02:04 AM	#690
porch Muse Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 682	Originally Posted by Steersman If a guy with a vasectomy gets it reversed then he's changed his state from sexless to male. As for "habitual condom use", male then not-male then male then not .... Like being "hungry" at breakfast, full shortly thereafter, hungry before lunch, full thereafter, etc., etc., etc. I'm just gonna drop this quote here and give appropriate thanks for your furthering of scientific literacy.
porch Muse Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 682

Today, 03:59 AM	#691
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,372	Originally Posted by Steersman Do please show me, my Master, the errors of my ways. What errors? It's the rest of the world that's making errors - you are infallible.

Today, 06:09 AM	#692
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,326	If you meet an ignoramus, you've met an ignoramus. If everyone you meet is an ignoramus...
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.