Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Discuss anything you want.
For discussions about politics, please use the Politics area instead.
User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Indy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:34 pm

In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:29 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:01 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:38 am
Superbone wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:14 am
I see Indy and I are on the same wavelength.

And what's with calling everybody's argument a "straw man argument"? That's getting old. You can't just say that every time somebody refutes you.
When you use those tactics, I will continue to call them out. What's wrong with that? Besides, I get it, everyone is thinks they work. That's fine, go ahead and call each of these things bs. You should be able back it up without resorting to techniques that only appeal to everyone else here, like "gotcha" with that zinger. I'm not trying to push disinformation, just the information that's available. You all can read it and think for yourselves. If it's BS, you can call it BS, tell me why and I'll agree with you if I think you make a great point. Sauce made a great point about prisons and dorms being susceptible to viruses. I agree, dorms especially, since young students don't seem to be very willingly to social distance at all times. I think prisons can be much more controlled and separated, especially if they decide to have only one prisoner per room, but it still runs through there just as easily.
Honestly, In2, it is very easy to find science-based refutations of every one of these things you post as "interesting. what do you all think" posts. For example:

The most recent one wasn't even accepted at the first few journals it was submitted to. It doesn't even look at the impact to the population, only the people in the study. And it was done in a place that had no recommendations for masks at all. And it only followed the people for 30 days (when we know the incubation period is around half of that time, you are throwing out half of the results).

It just isn't worth regurgitating all of the science in here. It like you are posting these youtube videos from flat-earthers and asking us what we think or where is the data to show the earth is round.
Your second paragraph makes a very good point. Perhaps they need to do a much better, larger and longer study on it.

As far as your first paragraph. Would you accept it if I just said "there are many many science-based studies that prove the masks do not make a difference"? I don't think you would at all.

You know this is a flat earth theory, come on.
I would not because it isn't true. Physicians/caregivers have been wearing masks for over a hundred years to help prevent getting and spreading infections via the air. The science in torturous path barriers isn't refutable, and is one of the key bases of all sterile packaging science going back to at least World War 2. Are masks perfect? Of course not. Neither are seatbelts. Or airbags. Or condoms. That does NOT mean they don't work.
Last edited by Indy on Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:35 pm

Superbone wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:44 am
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:38 am
I'm not trying to push disinformation, just the information that's available.
No, just a small subset of the information that's available that supports your arguments. A lot of it not very scientific.
You're right, some of it is large samples of data that is pieced together and/or looks like a correlation, and what some people think are interesting observations. Not all of it is specifically triple blind peer reviewed studies over yrs and yrs.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Indy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:37 pm

In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:35 pm
Superbone wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:44 am
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:38 am
I'm not trying to push disinformation, just the information that's available.
No, just a small subset of the information that's available that supports your arguments. A lot of it not very scientific.
You're right, some of it is large samples of data that is pieced together and/or looks like a correlation, and what some people think are interesting observations. Not all of it is specifically triple blind peer reviewed studies over yrs and yrs.
You do not need this to form sound, science-based conclusions. But you do need to control your variables and avoid the pitfalls of correlation = causation.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:42 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:37 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:35 pm
Superbone wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:44 am
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:38 am
I'm not trying to push disinformation, just the information that's available.
No, just a small subset of the information that's available that supports your arguments. A lot of it not very scientific.
You're right, some of it is large samples of data that is pieced together and/or looks like a correlation, and what some people think are interesting observations. Not all of it is specifically triple blind peer reviewed studies over yrs and yrs.
You do not need this to form sound, science-based conclusions. But you do need to control your variables and avoid the pitfalls of correlation = causation.
I'm all for that. Let it be done.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:43 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:34 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:29 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:01 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:38 am
Superbone wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:14 am
I see Indy and I are on the same wavelength.

And what's with calling everybody's argument a "straw man argument"? That's getting old. You can't just say that every time somebody refutes you.
When you use those tactics, I will continue to call them out. What's wrong with that? Besides, I get it, everyone is thinks they work. That's fine, go ahead and call each of these things bs. You should be able back it up without resorting to techniques that only appeal to everyone else here, like "gotcha" with that zinger. I'm not trying to push disinformation, just the information that's available. You all can read it and think for yourselves. If it's BS, you can call it BS, tell me why and I'll agree with you if I think you make a great point. Sauce made a great point about prisons and dorms being susceptible to viruses. I agree, dorms especially, since young students don't seem to be very willingly to social distance at all times. I think prisons can be much more controlled and separated, especially if they decide to have only one prisoner per room, but it still runs through there just as easily.
Honestly, In2, it is very easy to find science-based refutations of every one of these things you post as "interesting. what do you all think" posts. For example:

The most recent one wasn't even accepted at the first few journals it was submitted to. It doesn't even look at the impact to the population, only the people in the study. And it was done in a place that had no recommendations for masks at all. And it only followed the people for 30 days (when we know the incubation period is around half of that time, you are throwing out half of the results).

It just isn't worth regurgitating all of the science in here. It like you are posting these youtube videos from flat-earthers and asking us what we think or where is the data to show the earth is round.
Your second paragraph makes a very good point. Perhaps they need to do a much better, larger and longer study on it.

As far as your first paragraph. Would you accept it if I just said "there are many many science-based studies that prove the masks do not make a difference"? I don't think you would at all.

You know this is a flat earth theory, come on.
I would not because it isn't true. Physicians/caregivers have been wearing masks for over a hundred years to help prevent getting and spreading infections via the air. The science in torturous path barriers isn't refutable, and is one of the key bases of all sterile packaging science going back to at least World War 2. Are masks perfect? Of course not. Neither are seatbelts. Or airbags. Or condoms. That does NOT mean they don't work.
That is partially the point, Indy. If it's pushed that "it's the only way to stop the spread", we will never go back to what was normal even a yr ago again. I'm still skeptical and find it a little unlikely that a virus that is so small and small enough to go through a piece of cloth the same way a chain link fence offers protection against a sand storm is going to all that much to change the spread.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
specialsauce
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:45 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by specialsauce » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:45 pm

Superbone wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:11 am
specialsauce wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:54 am
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:25 am
specialsauce wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:29 am
It's my dick, my choice.
Sauce, your signature absolutely needs to be "It's my dick, my choice."
Lol taken out of context that could really go sideways
Yours too? :lol:
Lmao

User avatar
specialsauce
Posts: 4787
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:45 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by specialsauce » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:45 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:07 am
specialsauce wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 10:54 am
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:25 am
specialsauce wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:29 am
It's my dick, my choice.
Sauce, your signature absolutely needs to be "It's my dick, my choice."
Lol taken out of context that could really go sideways
Only if you get excited.
:lol:

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Indy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:02 pm

In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:43 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:34 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:29 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:01 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:38 am


When you use those tactics, I will continue to call them out. What's wrong with that? Besides, I get it, everyone is thinks they work. That's fine, go ahead and call each of these things bs. You should be able back it up without resorting to techniques that only appeal to everyone else here, like "gotcha" with that zinger. I'm not trying to push disinformation, just the information that's available. You all can read it and think for yourselves. If it's BS, you can call it BS, tell me why and I'll agree with you if I think you make a great point. Sauce made a great point about prisons and dorms being susceptible to viruses. I agree, dorms especially, since young students don't seem to be very willingly to social distance at all times. I think prisons can be much more controlled and separated, especially if they decide to have only one prisoner per room, but it still runs through there just as easily.
Honestly, In2, it is very easy to find science-based refutations of every one of these things you post as "interesting. what do you all think" posts. For example:

The most recent one wasn't even accepted at the first few journals it was submitted to. It doesn't even look at the impact to the population, only the people in the study. And it was done in a place that had no recommendations for masks at all. And it only followed the people for 30 days (when we know the incubation period is around half of that time, you are throwing out half of the results).

It just isn't worth regurgitating all of the science in here. It like you are posting these youtube videos from flat-earthers and asking us what we think or where is the data to show the earth is round.
Your second paragraph makes a very good point. Perhaps they need to do a much better, larger and longer study on it.

As far as your first paragraph. Would you accept it if I just said "there are many many science-based studies that prove the masks do not make a difference"? I don't think you would at all.

You know this is a flat earth theory, come on.
I would not because it isn't true. Physicians/caregivers have been wearing masks for over a hundred years to help prevent getting and spreading infections via the air. The science in torturous path barriers isn't refutable, and is one of the key bases of all sterile packaging science going back to at least World War 2. Are masks perfect? Of course not. Neither are seatbelts. Or airbags. Or condoms. That does NOT mean they don't work.
That is partially the point, Indy. If it's pushed that "it's the only way to stop the spread", we will never go back to what was normal even a yr ago again. I'm still skeptical and find it a little unlikely that a virus that is so small and small enough to go through a piece of cloth the same way a chain link fence offers protection against a sand storm is going to all that much to change the spread.
two quick points and then I will let you do the reading/research on your own.

* The virus is very small, but it doesn't get anywhere on its own. It travels around in droplets of fluid. Those droplets of fluid is what catches on the mask.

* N95 masks, or even simple dual-layer cloth masks, are not thin. They have dozens or even hundreds of layers of material on top of one another. In your straw-man argument of a chain-link fence versus a sand-storm--imagine the sand is actually the size of a marble, and there are a couple dozen chain-link fences slightly off-set from one another stacked right up next to each other. Now imagine the marble is thorny and sticky and will get caught on and stick to the fence.

You can read up on tortuous pathways and electrostatic attraction, or even inertial impact of the droplets when hitting a face covering.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:18 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:02 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:43 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:34 pm
In2ition wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:29 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:01 pm


Honestly, In2, it is very easy to find science-based refutations of every one of these things you post as "interesting. what do you all think" posts. For example:

The most recent one wasn't even accepted at the first few journals it was submitted to. It doesn't even look at the impact to the population, only the people in the study. And it was done in a place that had no recommendations for masks at all. And it only followed the people for 30 days (when we know the incubation period is around half of that time, you are throwing out half of the results).

It just isn't worth regurgitating all of the science in here. It like you are posting these youtube videos from flat-earthers and asking us what we think or where is the data to show the earth is round.
Your second paragraph makes a very good point. Perhaps they need to do a much better, larger and longer study on it.

As far as your first paragraph. Would you accept it if I just said "there are many many science-based studies that prove the masks do not make a difference"? I don't think you would at all.

You know this is a flat earth theory, come on.
I would not because it isn't true. Physicians/caregivers have been wearing masks for over a hundred years to help prevent getting and spreading infections via the air. The science in torturous path barriers isn't refutable, and is one of the key bases of all sterile packaging science going back to at least World War 2. Are masks perfect? Of course not. Neither are seatbelts. Or airbags. Or condoms. That does NOT mean they don't work.
That is partially the point, Indy. If it's pushed that "it's the only way to stop the spread", we will never go back to what was normal even a yr ago again. I'm still skeptical and find it a little unlikely that a virus that is so small and small enough to go through a piece of cloth the same way a chain link fence offers protection against a sand storm is going to all that much to change the spread.
two quick points and then I will let you do the reading/research on your own.

* The virus is very small, but it doesn't get anywhere on its own. It travels around in droplets of fluid. Those droplets of fluid is what catches on the mask.

* N95 masks, or even simple dual-layer cloth masks, are not thin. They have dozens or even hundreds of layers of material on top of one another. In your straw-man argument of a chain-link fence versus a sand-storm--imagine the sand is actually the size of a marble, and there are a couple dozen chain-link fences slightly off-set from one another stacked right up next to each other. Now imagine the marble is thorny and sticky and will get caught on and stick to the fence.

You can read up on tortuous pathways and electrostatic attraction, or even inertial impact of the droplets when hitting a face covering.
Touche' I wasn't talking about the N95 masks, but yes, that would make a huge difference.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

Online
User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 4142
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned

Post by Nodack » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:19 pm

There aren’t enough N95 masks for everyone. We are still being asked not to buy those to allow first responders to have them.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned

Post by Indy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:39 pm

Nodack wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:19 pm
There aren’t enough N95 masks for everyone. We are still being asked not to buy those to allow first responders to have them.
Yep and you don't need one. That was my point above.

Now if you plan to share an enclosed space with someone that is positive or likely positive, you should have one (and stay as far away, have good ventilation, use a face shield, and keep washing your hands).

User avatar
Flagrant Fowl
Posts: 3972
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:04 am
Location: Haeundae, Busan, South Korea

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Flagrant Fowl » Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:34 pm

Why is there still a mask shortage?

They're readily available everywhere here after an initial shortage back in March. I've even received at least 100 n95 masks for free from my employer.
UOducks4life in a previous life. Valar Morghulis.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Indy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:15 pm

Flagrant Fowl wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:34 pm
Why is there still a mask shortage?

They're readily available everywhere here after an initial shortage back in March. I've even received at least 100 n95 masks for free from my employer.
You can get all types from Amazon, delivered tomorrow. N95 & KN95

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Indy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:16 pm

Flagrant Fowl wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:34 pm
Why is there still a mask shortage?

They're readily available everywhere here after an initial shortage back in March. I've even received at least 100 n95 masks for free from my employer.
I should add--I think some people are reporting to not buy them because the US is exploding again and they are worried current productions cannot keep up with how many will be needed.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:08 pm

Have any of you seen this? Seems like it would be well spread news, but haven't seen this anywhere.

https://justthenews.com/nearly-50000-do ... oclamation?
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12473
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Indy » Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:52 pm

In2ition wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:08 pm
Have any of you seen this? Seems like it would be well spread news, but haven't seen this anywhere.
Because this:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/89204

Quick snippet here. Did you not google the document and the funding behind them?

Bhattacharya co-authored the Santa Clara antibody seroprevalence study, a preprint published in April that suggested coronavirus infections (and possibly, immunity) were up to 85 times higher than scientists originally thought. The study, which became a tool in the political debate to reopen the economy, was criticized for lacking sound evidence. It was later revealed by BuzzFeed News that the study received funding from the founder of JetBlue, which the authors hadn't disclosed.

Online
User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 4142
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Nodack » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:30 am

Worlds top scientist was raging? Just one guy? A typo?

The media interviews a lot of doctors other than Fauci. Fauci has been the disease expert for the past six presidents. He’s the guy. Of course they want to interview him.

I clicked on the Tweet and the only thing there is a bunch of doctors names. I saw no information other than the headline that one of them was raging against lock downs and someone being pissed off that the media likes to interview Fauci.

A bunch of disease doctors telling me I should wear a mask or wash my hands is something I would expect to hear. Are those Doctors who signed the petition telling me not to lock down because they think it makes the disease worse or do they just not like being locked down? It doesn’t make sense to me. Doctors giving economic advice?

Lock downs to me are a last ditch effort to control the virus when all the safeties are gone as in raging Covid rates and hospitals at or beyond capacity due to the virus...which is happening as we speak. Do you not think there should be any precautions with Covid In2ition? No lock downs, no masks, no spacing, just pretend it’s not happening and go about our business and let the chips fall where they are? Let the strong survive and cull the weak?

Online
User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 4142
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by Nodack » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:37 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bar ... eclaration

The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts and signed there on 4 October 2020.[1][2] It advocates an alternative, risk-based approach to the COVID-19 pandemic that involves "Focused Protection" of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.[3][4]

The declaration calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed to resume their normal lives, working normally at their usual workplaces rather than from home, socializing in bars and restaurants, and gathering at sporting and cultural events. The declaration claims that increased infection of those at lower risk would lead to a build-up of immunity in the population that would eventually also protect those at higher risk from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.[5] The declaration makes no mention of physical distancing and masks, nor of testing and tracing,[6] nor of "long COVID", which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection.[7][8]

The World Health Organization and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis.[9][10] They say that it would be impossible to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with underlying health conditions,[11][12] and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[10][13] Moreover, they say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.[10][13] The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[12] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "is not a strategy, it is a political statement. It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way."[9]

The Great Barrington Declaration was authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University.[1] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial.[14][15]

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:38 am

Indy wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:52 pm
In2ition wrote:
Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:08 pm
Have any of you seen this? Seems like it would be well spread news, but haven't seen this anywhere.
Because this:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/89204

Quick snippet here. Did you not google the document and the funding behind them?

Bhattacharya co-authored the Santa Clara antibody seroprevalence study, a preprint published in April that suggested coronavirus infections (and possibly, immunity) were up to 85 times higher than scientists originally thought. The study, which became a tool in the political debate to reopen the economy, was criticized for lacking sound evidence. It was later revealed by BuzzFeed News that the study received funding from the founder of JetBlue, which the authors hadn't disclosed.
Ok, thank you.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7141
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus: When should we be concerned?

Post by In2ition » Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:40 am

Nodack wrote:
Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:30 am
No lock downs, no masks, no spacing, just pretend it’s not happening and go about our business and let the chips fall where they are? Let the strong survive and cull the weak?
Am I making these arguments, Nodack?
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

Post Reply