In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
But that is literally what she says. She says that racism as it is used today in America is liberal propaganda, implying that there is no real racism. She then goes on to state that explicitly, by saying that there is less real racism than cholera in the US (although, to be fair to her, Cholera is on its way back as well).
On March 13 2015 10:26 Reaper9 wrote: I am grinding my teeth as I write this. Racism will never fucking end. NEVER. It has lessened to an extent, but people are inherently racist. Myself included, just not as severe. My barber fucking hates muslims. My coworker at work from the south dis-approves of black people. Racism, will, never, END. People will always find suspect in other people different from them. The point is, how can we make it so we can tolerate and live in proximity near each other?
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
But that is literally what she says. She says that racism as it is used today in America is liberal propaganda, implying that there is no real racism. She then goes on to state that explicitly, by saying that there is less real racism than cholera in the US (although, to be fair to her, Cholera is on its way back as well).
Come on, man. She said earlier in that same part of the interview that racism exists. Look at the implication behind her first or second statement in that same interview.
It's obvious she is using hyperbole to advance her assertion that the left uses racism as a tool anytime they want to try and make something socially of politically toxic (ie her statements in the past about people saying Americans criticize Obama because he's black and they are racist).
In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
On March 13 2015 10:54 Reaper9 wrote: In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
It will be impossible to eradicate as long as there are people on the left pushing the idea that racism is a one way street. Until people can have a conversation about racism in all colors of people you will just continue to see one side or the other polarize and dig in their heels on the issue.
Employment quotas, preferential college quotas, etc. do nothing to advance the idea of a color blind society devoid of racism. You can't solve discrimination with discrimination, no matter how justified or equitable you view that solution.
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
You have got to be kidding me right?
EDIT: Figured I'd add an example of exactly what I am talking about. I didn't bother to listen to the analysis I just wanted a source for the words he said.
First the list of successful black people and then.....
"Where...Is there racism? I don't think there is racism"
"I think the only people perpetuating racism, are people like this gentlemen from the NAACP, or the Al Sharptons of the world"
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
You have got to be kidding me right?
Nah, I don't have a problem calling out someone who tries to justify the cold blooded killing of two cops.
I have no love for a militarized police force. I have been speaking out against it ever since Clinton used it to intimidate the militias in the 90's. So long before it was cool. But shooting two cops outside the police station is not acceptable regardless of how many times you want to march around yelling Hands Up Don't Shoot.
On March 13 2015 10:54 Reaper9 wrote: In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
It will be impossible to eradicate as long as there are people on the left pushing the idea that racism is a one way street. Until people can have a conversation about racism in all colors of people you will just continue to see one side or the other polarize and dig in their heels on the issue.
Employment quotas, preferential college quotas, etc. do nothing to advance the idea of a color blind society devoid of racism. You can't solve discrimination with discrimination, no matter how justified or equitable you view that solution.
In order to have a color blind society we have to have a society in which every race has an equal opportunity to succeed. AA/ "preferential treatments" are a valid way to offer opportunities to help balance out life long discrimination, and move towards said color blind society.
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
You have got to be kidding me right?
Nah, I don't have a problem calling out someone who tries to justify the cold blooded killing of two cops.
I have no love for a militarized police force. I have been speaking out against it ever since Clinton used it to intimidate the militias in the 90's. So long before it was cool. But shooting two cops outside the police station is not acceptable regardless of how many times you want to march around yelling Hands Up Don't Shoot.
I haven't tried to justify anything. We don't know who shot the cops or why or whether they were aiming at the cops at all.
The only justification I've seen, is you trying to justify racists.
On March 13 2015 10:54 Reaper9 wrote: In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
It will be impossible to eradicate as long as there are people on the left pushing the idea that racism is a one way street. Until people can have a conversation about racism in all colors of people you will just continue to see one side or the other polarize and dig in their heels on the issue.
Employment quotas, preferential college quotas, etc. do nothing to advance the idea of a color blind society devoid of racism. You can't solve discrimination with discrimination, no matter how justified or equitable you view that solution.
In order to have a color blind society we have to have a society in which every race has an equal opportunity to succeed. AA/ "preferential treatments" are a valid way to offer opportunities to help balance out life long discrimination, and move towards said color blind society.
We're all going to be light brown before racism stops.
On March 13 2015 10:54 Reaper9 wrote: In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
It will be impossible to eradicate as long as there are people on the left pushing the idea that racism is a one way street. Until people can have a conversation about racism in all colors of people you will just continue to see one side or the other polarize and dig in their heels on the issue.
Employment quotas, preferential college quotas, etc. do nothing to advance the idea of a color blind society devoid of racism. You can't solve discrimination with discrimination, no matter how justified or equitable you view that solution.
In order to have a color blind society we have to have a society in which every race has an equal opportunity to succeed. AA/ "preferential treatments" are a valid way to offer opportunities to help balance out life long discrimination, and move towards said color blind society.
Gotta remember that some republicans see academia as entirely corrupted by liberal agendas. They can't trust the scientific method, because it is being used by corrupted researchers. Instead, gut instinct is obviously going to be a lot more accurate than statistics.
I mean, it should come as a surprise to nobody that there is proof of a frat being a bunch of assholes, but singing a chant with a racist slur in it in a public place is a new low. I realize going along with the crowd is what frats are all about, but really?
Again, racism is alive and well all over this country. I saw it myself in Colorado during the 2008 election and I'm sure the only reason I haven't seen it since is because I am a white male and I don't really have many black or latino friends.
Not just the slur, but the lynching reference, and the obvious explicitly racially exclusionary angle (the sheer glee and enthusiasm didn't help). It's also not like the racist people on that bus stopped being racist when the song was over either.
Not to mention who knows what's going to happen to the person who took/posted the video? Not sure who the most powerful people from SAE are, but I'm sure their not happy the video didn't come to them first, the same is likely for the top of whatever sorority was likely on that bus.
I think it's safe to say people who were talking about racism being over, or limited to a small group ,or stuff like that, and would then cite Obama and other successful black people as evidence, were just flat out wrong.
It's better than it was, but it's far from gone/isolated
I don't know anyone has ever claimed that the racism is completely over
Please, bring me more examples. While you are at it, I will start digging up dump, crazy, and outright nutcase statements from Democrats. Let's see who comes up with more. /sarcasm
On a slightly more serious note, you do understand that the RNC received a fair share of flak from its own GOP supporters, right? Both sides have made ridiculous comments, but the difference is that one is willing to criticize its own base while the other covers up both ears.
On March 13 2015 10:54 Reaper9 wrote: In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
It will be impossible to eradicate as long as there are people on the left pushing the idea that racism is a one way street. Until people can have a conversation about racism in all colors of people you will just continue to see one side or the other polarize and dig in their heels on the issue.
Employment quotas, preferential college quotas, etc. do nothing to advance the idea of a color blind society devoid of racism. You can't solve discrimination with discrimination, no matter how justified or equitable you view that solution.
In order to have a color blind society we have to have a society in which every race has an equal opportunity to succeed. AA/ "preferential treatments" are a valid way to offer opportunities to help balance out life long discrimination, and move towards said color blind society.
Gotta remember that some republicans see academia as entirely corrupted by liberal agendas. They can't trust the scientific method, because it is being used by corrupted researchers. Instead, gut instinct is obviously going to be a lot more accurate than statistics.
Hold up on the hopping from conclusion to conclusion. One can accuse modern academia/intellectuals of pressing their political agendas first, and pursue scientific research second (bending and twisting to suit the agenda). The scientific method, on the other hand, is all about honest inquiry--so sliding that in is just dishonest arguing. I remember one of the more recent topics was the manipulation of 20th century historical climate data (just google if you want to read the allegations). That's all about starting with conclusions and fitting the data to support, not starting with hypotheses and testing them with the statistics.
If you find quotes for those Republicans talking about gut instinct over science, go put a face to them in an article. Both sides use caricatures of their opposition, and yours are particularly more witty or penetrating.
the thing is: allegations are not truths, every investigation has concluded there was no missconduct, yet 6 years after the fact you still keep trotting it out as if anything had actually stuck
yes you love the method of throwing shit at scientific results you dont like in the hope something sticks in the public image long enough that people forget to care about the actual science.. and then trott that falsely tainted image of science out again and again as if the allegations were never shown to be wrong....
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
You have got to be kidding me right?
Nah, I don't have a problem calling out someone who tries to justify the cold blooded killing of two cops.
I have no love for a militarized police force. I have been speaking out against it ever since Clinton used it to intimidate the militias in the 90's. So long before it was cool. But shooting two cops outside the police station is not acceptable regardless of how many times you want to march around yelling Hands Up Don't Shoot.
In a city in which arrest warrants are issued for 16k of 21k citizens you have to wonder whether this still qualifies as police work or institutional racism.We actually don't need to wonder because the Doj investigation has already concluded that there was racism in play. Shooting other people is always bad, but in this context of decade long poverty, crime and oppression this situations will inevitably arise.
I mean, it should come as a surprise to nobody that there is proof of a frat being a bunch of assholes, but singing a chant with a racist slur in it in a public place is a new low. I realize going along with the crowd is what frats are all about, but really?
Again, racism is alive and well all over this country. I saw it myself in Colorado during the 2008 election and I'm sure the only reason I haven't seen it since is because I am a white male and I don't really have many black or latino friends.
Not just the slur, but the lynching reference, and the obvious explicitly racially exclusionary angle (the sheer glee and enthusiasm didn't help). It's also not like the racist people on that bus stopped being racist when the song was over either.
Not to mention who knows what's going to happen to the person who took/posted the video? Not sure who the most powerful people from SAE are, but I'm sure their not happy the video didn't come to them first, the same is likely for the top of whatever sorority was likely on that bus.
I think it's safe to say people who were talking about racism being over, or limited to a small group ,or stuff like that, and would then cite Obama and other successful black people as evidence, were just flat out wrong.
It's better than it was, but it's far from gone/isolated
I don't know anyone has ever claimed that the racism is completely over
You mean like this?
RNCVerified account @GOP Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism.
Please, bring me more examples. While you are at it, I will start digging up dump, crazy, and outright nutcase statements from Democrats. Let's see who comes up with more. /sarcasm
On a slightly more serious note, you do understand that the RNC received a fair share of flak from its own GOP supporters, right? Both sides have made ridiculous comments, but the difference is that one is willing to criticize its own base while the other covers up both ears.
I don't even get what you're trying to say now? First you said you didn't think anyone said it, then I show you people saying it and they are too crazy.
One of the examples of word for word what I was talking about, that not even hanna tried to deny, was a host for one of the highest rated conservative tv news shows.
Are you saying Fox News is crazy, or just Bolling/Coulter/The Person that sent the RNC Tweet, or just that bus and department, I really don't know?
On March 13 2015 09:31 dAPhREAk wrote: thread. are we allowed to read infowars.com? dont want to waste my time unnecessarily.
also, @hannahmontana, i read the coulter interview. i am curious how you interpret it, because i cringed.
It's easy to interpret. Racism is something the race baiter like Jackson and Sharpton trot out to explain why half of America doesn't like Obama. Or to explain why people don't think shooting a 300lb thug who was bull rushing a police officer after robbing a convenience store is a racist act.
Before I even comment, is your position that there is no more racism in the USA, and most if not all mentions of racism are liberal propaganda? Because that seems to be what Ann Coulter was saying there (albeit in a mindnumbingly dumb comparison).
No, my position is that in the context of the interview, it was intellectually dishonest of Green (I see racism in a warm beer mug) Horizons to accuse Coulter of saying racism doesn't exist.
You have got to be kidding me right?
Nah, I don't have a problem calling out someone who tries to justify the cold blooded killing of two cops.
This, right there, should justify at least a temporary ban. The amount of toxic personal attacks and outright dishonesty that hannahbelle has brought in this thread (and in political threads in general) is simply insane at this point. I mean what the hell, accusing GreenHorizons of "justifying the cold blooded killing of two cops"?! How far does this guy have to go before something is done to clean up this thread?
On March 13 2015 10:54 Reaper9 wrote: In a way. The old generation may learn, but a new one will rise. Although the new generation can learn to be tolerant too. I'm just glad I can type like this, devoid of civil wars and massive loss of life unlike what is happening in other countries. There will always be someone who dislikes someone because of their physical attributes or affiliations in life. That's just how I see it as. Lessening racism is something I would love to see everyone strive towards, and we have made progress. But to wipe it out is impossible.
I'll keep an eye on this thread as I usually do, but this is the last time I will post in a while, good luck to you all. See you all in another 100 pages or so XD.
It will be impossible to eradicate as long as there are people on the left pushing the idea that racism is a one way street. Until people can have a conversation about racism in all colors of people you will just continue to see one side or the other polarize and dig in their heels on the issue.
Employment quotas, preferential college quotas, etc. do nothing to advance the idea of a color blind society devoid of racism. You can't solve discrimination with discrimination, no matter how justified or equitable you view that solution.
In order to have a color blind society we have to have a society in which every race has an equal opportunity to succeed. AA/ "preferential treatments" are a valid way to offer opportunities to help balance out life long discrimination, and move towards said color blind society.
Gotta remember that some republicans see academia as entirely corrupted by liberal agendas. They can't trust the scientific method, because it is being used by corrupted researchers. Instead, gut instinct is obviously going to be a lot more accurate than statistics.
Hold up on the hopping from conclusion to conclusion. One can accuse modern academia/intellectuals of pressing their political agendas first, and pursue scientific research second (bending and twisting to suit the agenda). The scientific method, on the other hand, is all about honest inquiry--so sliding that in is just dishonest arguing. I remember one of the more recent topics was the manipulation of 20th century historical climate data (just google if you want to read the allegations). That's all about starting with conclusions and fitting the data to support, not starting with hypotheses and testing them with the statistics.
If you find quotes for those Republicans talking about gut instinct over science, go put a face to them in an article. Both sides use caricatures of their opposition, and yours are particularly more witty or penetrating.
It's not dishonest arguing. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with human-created climate change. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with science. If there were bias being applied, others would drool at the prospect of publishing contrary papers to gain citation count and notoriety. Proving popular opinion also helps when trying to publish in prestigious papers like nature. The idea that the scientific community is biased in favor of climate change is silly for many reasons, but the most pronounced is what a poor understanding of academia and the ruthlessly cannibalistic nature it expresses. Many scientists would have no problem going bankrupt if it meant fame and glory for proving a widely held view wrong. It just isn't wrong. If it was, we'd be past that by now. The statistics and atmospheric models have become quite good and have really clear conclusions.
But I think the thing that most scientists don't elaborate on enough when talking about climate change is how much incentive there is to prove it wrong. Good lord it would be the most cited paper of the year. The fame, glory, etc would make a career in itself. Scientists often have bitter rivalries and only collaborate when it seems mutually beneficial. It's not like Star Trek or most other TV shows where they all just sit around and chat about how wonderful it is to explore the world together.
I also make a very clear distinction between atmospheric physics and any and all social sciences. I can't speak for them, and honestly, I think a lot of people go into those fields for personal reasons. But if there is one collective set of people who you can readily rely on to prove each other wrong at every possible instance, it is physicists. No amount of money in the world could keep the big shots from proving to the world how brilliant they are. And by the same token, the ones who ARE at the top are downright paranoid. Many researchers will hesitate to publish things until they are certain they can't be disproven. The effect of having to retract a paper can be career ending. As such, even when a researcher (especially a top guy) is 99% sure of his conclusions and KNOWS it will be accepted by the journal's acceptance committee, they can sometimes wait YEARS to publish. Purely for the sake of being able to rest at night knowing there are no experiments they left out, or any other interpretations of data that could have been made to prove them wrong.
I'd disagree on the bitter rivalries thing. Most fields of science are incredibly interconnected, and you can draw family trees of PhD students by who they were mentored, then draw lines between who has worked with who, knows who, has collaborated on a paper with who. I mean, come on there's a thing called the Erdos number (for mathematicians, if you don't know what it is google it. It's quite interesting).
One or two groups (not individuals) racing to get the solution or paper out is pretty rare-- since science is kind of almost a luck thing at a certain point, it's better for two groups to collaborate and share credit than run the risk of losing, or god forbid, delaying an important discovery for mankind. The only example that strikes me is the public vs. private teams racing to sequence the human genome. In that case, thank goodness the public one won, the private team was run by some assholes who wanted to copyright the genome.
But, uh, yeah, all scientists work together and share its a big socialist conspiracy. That's the point I was trying to make.
Sure there are collaborations as I said. There is also a lot of competition. My point is that under no circumstances would something as uniformly agreed on as climate change be left alone. If there's a possibility it's wrong, a few grad students are gonna at least have it as a side project. Regardless of if the entire scientific world collaborated, they would still drool for the chance to be the one to prove everyone wrong. It would guaranteed happen.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c1sTQN3.png)
