Real Science Friday: Languages II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Real Science Friday: Languages II

This is the show from Friday February 13th, 2009.

SUMMARY:

* Origin of Human Language: This Part II of RSF: Languages concludes the presentation of Bob Enyart and RSF co-host Fred Williams discussing the expert evolutionists whose research and conclusions disprove Darwin's own theory of the evolution of language from animal grunts to human speech! Bob and Fred celebrate Dr. Jerry Bergman's article, Evolution and the Origin of Human Language! For example Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- some languages are 'primitive' ("eminent linguist Stuart Chase bluntly stated that 'stories about tribes with only grunts and squeals are biological fakes'" and P.A. "Gaeng concluded 'Any hope, therefore, of discovering the specific origin of language from the languages of primitive groups must also be abandoned.'")
- and that animal grunts can be shown to be steps toward language
- and that evidence of language evolution would exist.
Instead, as Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found! Also, the hope of some evolutionists that a single dramatic mutation switched on the human ability for language is disproved by today's knowledge that our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require "a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system, the entire oral-nasal-pharynx design, and many accessory structures such as the teeth, tongue, lips, nasal cavities, larynx, lungs, uvula and nose." Thus, "Our putative closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are physically unable to produce speech." Bergman draws from D. K. Harrison's, Oxford Press 2007, explaining that an animal species relies "on a single system of communication; humans use one or more of the almost 7,000 different extant language systems, from English to Swahili," so that "whereas animal species posses an innate set of oral responses" i.e., genetically programmed, "children usually require several years to acquire their specific language..." Then Bergman presents the lesson of a life's work: "Chomsky concluded from his lifelong research on this subject that no evolutionary transition exists between the noises that animals make and human speech." And consistent with biblical history, "some scholars believe that all languages can be traced back to about a hundred language groups" and, "the oldest known written language, Accadian [aka Akkadian, Acadian, etc.]," was spoken in the Middle East. Human language is another great argument against evolution and supporting creation.

* RSF - Languages I: Hear Part I from last Friday's program!

* 60% of BEL February Telethon: Help Bob Enyart continue to present news from a biblical perspective and broadcast the truth of God's Word to thousands and thousands of people hungry to know Jesus Christ and His principles. The KGOV staff is thankful that so far, our listeners have given 60% of our $20,000 goal to keep Bob broadcasting through 2009! Please give online or by calling 1-800-8Enyart! Please help!

Today's Resource: For our February BEL Broadcast Telethon, save $20 on any two Bible Study albums for a gift of $50 (normally $69.98) and save more than $50 on any four BEL resources (including The Plot, etc.) for a gift of $100 to help Bob Enyart stay on the air for another year! You can browse our online KGOV Store to select the titles you are most interested in, and then please call 1-800-8Enyart to order, or send a check to Bob Enyart Live, PO Box 583, Arvada CO 80001. Also get the second month FREE if you sign up for any of our Subscription Services (like our BEL Televised Classics), and SAVE up to $150 if you mention the telethon to get 10% off our Enyart Library (one of everything!), the BEL Audio Library, or the BEL Video Library
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
:squint:
Does the fact that there are no Tin Lizzies cruising the streets today show that modern car design couldn't have "evolved" from simpler forms?
This isn't a worthy or convincing argument unless you are desperate to provide a few window-dressing objections to real science.
:nono:
 

Stratnerd

New member
To me it's like looking for the evidence that feathers evolved by looking for primitive feathers in living "primitive" birds. Looking at birds' closest living relatives, the croc, there's no sign of feathers. Prima facie then, you can say there's no evidence that feathers evolved. Of course with all the Chinese specimens we can now say that there's exceedingly good evidence that feathers evolved (and it jives with evo-devo...see Prum's Auk paper)

So, anyway, how would language be captured in the fossil record? If it can't be then how are we to presume either way about the abilities of Australopithecines and our congeners?

How did this paper deal with this issue?

How did this paper deal with the vocalizations of chimps? Their ability to non-verbally communicate?
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Hey Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, could you reply to...

Hey Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, could you reply to...

Hey Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, I realize you guys disagree, but sheesh, it seems you should be able to respond to the actual claims made. No?

Here, I'll show you what you should respond to...

Origin of Human Language: ...discussing the expert evolutionists whose research and conclusions disprove Darwin's own theory of the evolution of language from animal grunts to human speech...

That is what is claimed. Not any silly notion, aka straw dummy, of missing audible words trapped in rock strata.

Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- some languages are 'primitive' ("eminent linguist Stuart Chase bluntly stated that 'stories about tribes with only grunts and squeals are biological fakes'" and P.A. "Gaeng concluded 'Any hope, therefore, of discovering the specific origin of language from the languages of primitive groups must also be abandoned.'")

Reply to that. No?

Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- animal grunts can be shown to be steps toward language

Reply to that. No?

Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- evidence of language evolution would exist.

Reply to that. No?

What Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, are you going to say that Darwin and an army of subsequent evolutionary linguists were silly to look because such evolution would have disappeared eons ago? Remember, mankind supposedly evolved from apes just in the last three million years. Where would you place the evolution of human language? At the beginning of that process? And remember, evolution would happen at the extraordinarily slow pace of human reproduction, which is why Darwin, et. al, assumed that there should still exist primative human languages and evidence of grunt-to-speech evolution.

Reply to that. No?

Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, showing that primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found!

Also, the hope of some evolutionists that a single dramatic mutation switched on the human ability for language is disproved by today's knowledge that our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require "a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system, the entire oral-nasal-pharynx design, and many accessory structures such as the teeth, tongue, lips, nasal cavities, larynx, lungs, uvula and nose."

Reply to that Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd. No?

Thus, "Our putative closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are physically unable to produce speech."

Reply to that. No?

"Chomsky concluded from his lifelong research on this subject that no evolutionary transition exists between the noises that animals make and human speech."

Reply to that. No?

Thanks guys for using the awesome creation of God, human language. Like two lesbians getting married in a tux and a gown, you three affirm the Creator even by denying Him.

-Bob Enyart
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Using Chomsky selectively and setting up a Darwin Was Wrong I'm Right Strawman is misleading and low rent, at best. Do you expect all evolutionists to agree with Darwin and every single one of the man's conclusions?

If you want to understand the development of language, I suggest actually reading Chomsky.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Hey Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, I realize you guys disagree, but sheesh, it seems you should be able to respond to the actual claims made. No?

Here, I'll show you what you should respond to...

Origin of Human Language: ...discussing the expert evolutionists whose research and conclusions disprove Darwin's own theory of the evolution of language from animal grunts to human speech...

That is what is claimed. Not any silly notion, aka straw dummy, of missing audible words trapped in rock strata.

Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- some languages are 'primitive' ("eminent linguist Stuart Chase bluntly stated that 'stories about tribes with only grunts and squeals are biological fakes'" and P.A. "Gaeng concluded 'Any hope, therefore, of discovering the specific origin of language from the languages of primitive groups must also be abandoned.'")
Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- animal grunts can be shown to be steps toward language

Reply to that. No?

Why are we arguing over Darwin's ideas rather than modern evolutionary theory about the development of language? We might as well start beating you over the head about how opposed early protestants were to heliocentrism. Darwin had some correct ideas and some ideas that we now know to have been very wrong.

Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- evidence of language evolution would exist.

Reply to that. No?
Define "evidence of language evolution". Certainly languages evolve and tend to become more complex over only a few generations when begun from a simple (pidgin starter language).

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/researchers-syn.html

What Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, are you going to say that Darwin and an army of subsequent evolutionary linguists were silly to look because such evolution would have disappeared eons ago? Remember, mankind supposedly evolved from apes just in the last three million years. Where would you place the evolution of human language? At the beginning of that process?
It is not entirely understood when or how human language originated, but certainly modern apes are capable of understanding the basics of language even some rudiments of syntax.


And remember, evolution would happen at the extraordinarily slow pace of human reproduction, which is why Darwin, et. al, assumed that there should still exist primative human languages and evidence of grunt-to-speech evolution.
Language evolution (going from a simple to an advanced language) certainly does not happen at a slow pace. It can happen extremely rapidly. Once the human species had a modern capacity for understanding language there would be absolutely no reason for "primitive" languages to remain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language


Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, showing that primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found!
Define what you mean by evolution of language - do you mean its genetic and morphological basis, or do you mean the actual evolution of languages as it continues to go on today?

Also, the hope of some evolutionists that a single dramatic mutation switched on the human ability for language is disproved by today's knowledge that our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require "a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system, the entire oral-nasal-pharynx design, and many accessory structures such as the teeth, tongue, lips, nasal cavities, larynx, lungs, uvula and nose."

How does the fact that it may have taken multiple independent mutations and changes for the origin of modern language mean that it couldn't happen? We are slowly piecing together genetic components that are essential for speech.

FOXP2 has been put forward as one of "the" genes responsible for the evolution of speech however, it is a transcription factor and so turns on a cascade of many other genes which may be more directly involved in language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2


Thus, "Our putative closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are physically unable to produce speech."
No but they are able to understand the very basics of it even though they lack the physical equipment to make sounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM7vTrIIis

Kanzi is actually a very special bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee) since he learned symbols mostly naturally from his mother. I can't find it on youtube but I've seen film on nova where the researcher would ask Kanzi to "Get the ball from outside and put it in the refrigerator" and he would comply without being led to any of the objects.

"Chomsky concluded from his lifelong research on this subject that no evolutionary transition exists between the noises that animals make and human speech."
Of course it wouldn't exist . . .anymore, since any primitive speech would be rapidly swamped by more functional speech. You know . . .survival of the fittest?
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Hey Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, I realize you guys disagree, but sheesh, it seems you should be able to respond to the actual claims made. No?

Here, I'll show you what you should respond to...

Origin of Human Language: ...discussing the expert evolutionists whose research and conclusions disprove Darwin's own theory of the evolution of language from animal grunts to human speech...

That is what is claimed. Not any silly notion, aka straw dummy, of missing audible words trapped in rock strata.
:squint:
UmmmmmmmK...
Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- some languages are 'primitive' ("eminent linguist Stuart Chase bluntly stated that 'stories about tribes with only grunts and squeals are biological fakes'" and P.A. "Gaeng concluded 'Any hope, therefore, of discovering the specific origin of language from the languages of primitive groups must also be abandoned.'")

Reply to that. No?
Agreed. What's your point? Newton has been proved wrong on the particulars of gravity but we don't throw out the basic equations. We refine and move on. Humanity and the trappings of it, language included, while the product of evolution are no longer subject to it in the same way that other species are. If you have doubts go visit a hospital or an old folk's home.
Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- animal grunts can be shown to be steps toward language

Reply to that. No?
Animal vocalizations, absent the ability to think abstractly, are communication but not language. So what?
Darwin has been proved wrong in his belief that:
- evidence of language evolution would exist.

Reply to that. No?
He was wrong. We don't have any ancestor's that are close enough to show the ability to conceptualize but distant enough to be useful. He was wrong. It happens a lot in science.
What Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd, are you going to say that Darwin and an army of subsequent evolutionary linguists were silly to look because such evolution would have disappeared eons ago?
No, because until they looked they didn't know. That's why the "look" part is important- something creationists never seem to get around too...
Remember, mankind supposedly evolved from apes just in the last three million years. Where would you place the evolution of human language? At the beginning of that process? And remember, evolution would happen at the extraordinarily slow pace of human reproduction, which is why Darwin, et. al, assumed that there should still exist primative human languages and evidence of grunt-to-speech evolution.

Reply to that. No?
I don't know when it would have happened. What of it?
Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, showing that primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found!
And we are saying "SO WHAT?"
Also, the hope of some evolutionists that a single dramatic mutation switched on the human ability for language is disproved by today's knowledge that our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require "a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system, the entire oral-nasal-pharynx design, and many accessory structures such as the teeth, tongue, lips, nasal cavities, larynx, lungs, uvula and nose."

Reply to that Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd. No?
Speech as it is used today requires those things...
:mrt::duh:
In a more primative form who knows what it might have sounded like?
Thus, "Our putative closest relatives, the chimpanzees, are physically unable to produce speech."

Reply to that. No?
:mrt::duh:
They are also mentally unable to produce speech- a far more important distinction.
"Chomsky concluded from his lifelong research on this subject that no evolutionary transition exists between the noises that animals make and human speech."

Reply to that. No?
Modern biology doesn't predict that there should be one around today and there is literally no way to test for it in the past.
Thanks guys for using the awesome creation of God, human language. Like two lesbians getting married in a tux and a gown, you three affirm the Creator even by denying Him.

-Bob Enyart
I most certainly do NOT deny the Creator. I deny the limitations you place on Him and the contradictions and obstacles you place in the path of prospective seekers of His glory.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
PlastikBuddha and I have had the following discussion...

PlastikBuddha and I have had the following discussion...

Bob Enyart said:
Remember, mankind supposedly evolved from apes just in the last three million years. Where would you place the evolution of human language? At the beginning of that process? And remember, evolution would happen at the extraordinarily slow pace of human reproduction, which is why Darwin, et. al, assumed that there should still exist primative human languages and evidence of grunt-to-speech evolution.

PB: I don't know when it would have happened. What of it?

What of it? If supposed early hominids lacked the physiological capacity for language, and there are no remnants of language evolution in late hominids, the time for language to evolve gets squeezed. Eventually, as the force of scientific discoveries increases, it will be simply overwhelmingly obvious that in the too-brief-by-a-factor-of-a-trillion-or-so era between Lucy and the Beatles, there is simply not enough time for reproduction-rate, mutation-based, variations to change Australopithecus to homo sapien. That's what of it. No?

Bob Enyart said:
Bob and Fred present the conclusions of some of the world's leading linguists such as Edward Sapir and MIT's Noam Chomsky, showing that primitive languages do not exist and no evidence of the evolution of language has been found!

PB: And we are saying "SO WHAT?"

We're squeezing, squeezing, ever squeezing. That's what.

Bob Enyart said:
Also, the hope of some evolutionists that a single dramatic mutation switched on the human ability for language is disproved by today's knowledge that our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require "a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system, the entire oral-nasal-pharynx design, and many accessory structures such as the teeth, tongue, lips, nasal cavities, larynx, lungs, uvula and nose." Reply to that Granite, PlastikBuddha, and Stratnerd. No?

PB: Speech as it is used today requires those things... In a more primative form who knows what it might have sounded like?

PlastikB, you ask what it might have sounded like? sounded like? Do you realize what we are talking about? What the sounds of a language are like is so insignificant to the overall language ability. You guys talk about sounds not being trapped in rock strata, and you think you're responding by saying we don't know what it sounding like? You did read the quote no? Including that: "our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require 'a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system...'" And PB you dismiss this evidence against some snappy mutations that produce language because... we don't know what evolving language sounded like?

Thanks for talking,

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
PB: I don't know when it would have happened. What of it?

What of it? If supposed early hominids lacked the physiological capacity for language, and there are no remnants of language evolution in late hominids, the time for language to evolve gets squeezed.
What do YOU think we should expect to find and why do you think this?
Eventually, as the force of scientific discoveries increases, it will be simply overwhelmingly obvious that in the too-brief-by-a-factor-of-a-trillion-or-so era between Lucy and the Beatles, there is simply not enough time for reproduction-rate, mutation-based, variations to change Australopithecus to homo sapien.
You sound awfully confiedent, but I hope you will forgive me if I'm unmoved. The tissue changes that would mark the evolution of the structures necessary for physical speech and the mental capacity to produce it aren't likely to be fossilized and there is no reason to suspect that we will be able to pin the "moment" down exactly, but I see no reason for your strange over-estimation.
That's what of it. No?
No.

PB: And we are saying "SO WHAT?"

We're squeezing, squeezing, ever squeezing. That's what.
:chuckle:
You (creationists) are poking, ever poking- trying to find a soft spot, but only providing more incentive for the truth to be uncovered by those who have the expertise to actually put the pieces together. What you've got here, however, is a whole bunch of nothing, that challenges the idea of evolution not at all. The "evolution" of language is more social than biological (once the prerequisites are out of the way). This attack from language warrants nothing but a "so what".
PB: Speech as it is used today requires those things... In a more primative form who knows what it might have sounded like?

PlastikB, you ask what it might have sounded like? sounded like? Do you realize what we are talking about? What the sounds of a language are like is so insignificant to the overall language ability.
Which is even more impossible to quantify from bones... I meant what it sounds like in terms of syntax and vocabulary in comparison to modern laguage not so much the actual sounds. It's not like we have any writing to compare it with, either. The nature of a primitive language is something we can only speculate about.
You guys talk about sounds not being trapped in rock strata, and you think you're responding by saying we don't know what it sounding like?
:squint:
No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that the evolution of language is just not something we can observe. We can't watch it unfold from primitive to sophisticated because all modern human beings have the same capacity (as a species). Darwin misunderstood the nature of our species, seeing some socities as innately more primitive than others. He was wrong.
You did read the quote no? Including that: "our language interface is spread out geographically across regions of the brain, and also, as summarized by Bergman, humans require 'a complex set of biological capabilities, including not only the mind, but also the nervous system...'" And PB you dismiss this evidence against some snappy mutations that produce language because... we don't know what evolving language sounded like?
No, Bob, that's not why I dismiss it. I brought that up as an example of why talking about it as though you have some special insight is a waste of time. We don't know the variables involved, and it is likely we never will- at least not completely.
As for the complexity of evolved speech and the capacity of the brain to use it...

Your objections seem to be nothing more than a rehashed "half-a-wing" argument. It would present difficulty for evolution only if we believed that speech was the "goal" of evolution. Biology doesn't work that way.
Thanks for talking,

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
:cheers:
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
social? written records? clay tablets? sudden appearance?

social? written records? clay tablets? sudden appearance?

PB: "The 'evolution' of language is more social than biological (once the prerequisites are out of the way)."

PB, the big picture has to do with the evolution of language ability, not changes in one language as compared to another, etc. So you to dismiss the required extraordinary biological complexity even described in my last post as "once the prereqs are out of the way." And you say that the matter is only social.

Finally (I don't know if I'll get back to this thread), you should realize that when you claim that we should not expect any physical trace of language development because of it's non-physical nature, you are forgetting about the supposed evolution of written language. It is consistent with a biblical worldview, and EVIDENCE AGAINST Darwinism, that the archaeological, anthropological, historical world records the sudden appearance of written language of already fully-developed languages; and this, just in the few thousands years before Christ. Because the Bible is true, we will not find clay tablets of the history of hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands of years before Christ. And by the way, while CDs, DVDs, studio beta tapes, etc., have a shelf-life of only 10 to 20 years (at BEL we know this, and so we've been converting our old shows to digital form that we can more easily preserve), modern technology can't hold a candle to the longevity of ancient written records, which have survived for millenia, including for example, much of the library of Nineveh: which liberals once recklessly doubted the existence of against the Bible's historical account).

Thanks PB,

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
PB: "The 'evolution' of language is more social than biological (once the prerequisites are out of the way)."

PB, the big picture has to do with the evolution of language ability, not changes in one language as compared to another, etc.
Then why bring up primitive languages instead of more primitive organisms?
So you to dismiss the required extraordinary biological complexity even described in my last post as "once the prereqs are out of the way." And you say that the matter is only social.
The evolution of the ability to use language and the evolution of language are different subjects. If you want to talk about required biological complexity drop the whole "primitive langauge" line of attak and talk about the mental capacity. Since we don't know how it happened, however, simply insisting that you feel it's too complex to have evolved doesn't bring anything but incredulity to the table.
Finally (I don't know if I'll get back to this thread), you should realize that when you claim that we should not expect any physical trace of language development because of it's non-physical nature, you are forgetting about the supposed evolution of written language.
What supposed evolution of the written langauge? By the time we have written language recorded it appears that man was fully in his current form and language as complex as it is today. Where are you getting this and what makes you think this way?
It is consistent with a biblical worldview, and EVIDENCE AGAINST Darwinism, that the archaeological, anthropological, historical world records the sudden appearance of written language of already fully-developed languages;
:rotfl:
Nope. Do you honestly believe that we believe that some proto-human apes who were evolving the ability to communicate in more than grunts were also "evolving" grammer and an alphabet!?
:rotfl:
Nice try. Explain in detail what you think Darwinism predicts for the rise of language in the human species and how what we actually find contradicts this before you go counting the evidence in favor of your pet theory.
and this, just in the few thousands years before Christ.
Which all took place among modern humans. Evolution of the species doesn't enter into the picture. Thus my comment that this was about social evolution...
Because the Bible is true, we will not find clay tablets of the history of hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands of years before Christ.
I also make this prediction, but primarily because there is no evidence of settled populations thousands of years before that time.
And by the way, while CDs, DVDs, studio beta tapes, etc., have a shelf-life of only 10 to 20 years (at BEL we know this, and so we've been converting our old shows to digital form that we can more easily preserve), modern technology can't hold a candle to the longevity of ancient written records, which have survived for millenia, including for example, much of the library of Nineveh: which liberals once recklessly doubted the existence of against the Bible's historical account).

Thanks PB,

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com
"Liberals"? "Recklessly"?
:rotfl:
Your agenda really is too much sometimes...
That depends on the media Bob. Clay tablets, despite your strange obsession, are not exactly the state of the art in information preservation although they do get the job done if conditions are right. Most end up being broken or lost. Paper is even less hardy while stone fares a little better, but isn't exactly easy to work. It's not like we aren't better at storing information than the ancients just that the KIND of information we are recording varies. I think maybe you should read about the rise of civilization in general and writing in particular, both what we know now and what we expect to find in the future, before you make sweeping pronouncements on the so-called predictions of Darwinisn as they relate to things like anthropology and archeaology. I mean read the best accounts and ideas, by the way, not just those that are soft on your chosen interoretation of the Christ's message. Reading people who always agree with you isn't the way to learn anything new or useful.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top