Someone posted a link to a video about some guy who invented this LED lamp that was powered by gravity, which would pull it down a length of a string, with a weight attached to the lamp, providing bright light for up to 20 minutes at a time. The device is useful to people in villages where they do not have electricity. Of course, like any other post on facebook, there were people making comments in the comment section. One guy, named Derrick, not previously known to be so daft (though was known to be a bit snippy at times), began to argue that the device wasn't evidence of gravity. It's not like anybody was arguing this point; but at the same time, I doubt anyone else would have, since the argument didn't make a lot of sense, and subsequently devolved into something that no longer involved any sense at all.
There were actually three separate comment threads that ensued that involved some "discussion" between Derrick and me, and they are detailed below. But before having a look at them, I'd like to point out a few words, and their definitions, that are useful in the analysis of these exchanges. The topic at hand was gravity - after all, that's where this began. To that end, to keep within this context, there are a number of words that are frequently used when discussing the behavior and handling of things that are under the influence of gravity.
Now, without getting into detail about what gravity IS (any argument of whether gravity is a force or an effect of space-time curvature would be beyond the scope of this exchange, and probably beyond the intellectual capacity or education of at least one of the participants - and note that I am not excluding myself here), it is probably safe to say that, for the purposes of this discussion, gravity is considered a force. In fact, at one point in the discussion, it was defined as an "attraction between two or more bodies of mass." Again, whether that is a technically accurate definition or not, it serves as the basis for understanding where the participants were coming from.
Keeping within the context of gravity, I have listed the definitions of a number of words, below, that are relevant to the conversation, selecting only the relevant definitions (i.e. the ones that could be applied to the topic of gravity):
- Fall Verb: Move downward, typically rapidly and freely without control, from a higher to a lower level.
- Down Adverb: Toward or in a lower place or position, especially to or on the ground or another surface.
- Up Adverb: Toward the sky or a higher position.
- Lift Verb: Raise to a higher position or level. Move upward; be raised.
- Ground
Noun: The solid surface of the earth. - Earth Noun: The planet on which we live; the world.
The surface of the world as distinct from the sky or the sea.
The substance of the land surface; soil. - Higher
(no definition found - root word high) Adjective: Far above ground, sea level, or another point of reference. - Lower
Adverb: In or into a lower position.
Verb: Move in a downward direction. - Raise Verb: Lift or move to a higher position or level.
- Drop Verb: Let or make (something) fall vertically. Fall vertically. (Of a person or animal) sink to or toward the ground.
Below is the first conversation that started everything off. The trigger point was when I asked Derrick how he defines "fall" without using gravity. As you'll see, he's got quite a hot button around that, with a theme he clings to 'til the bitter end. I will inject further comments on the side, throughout this - uh - discussion, if not to clarify the comments, then to merely continue venting on my part. ;-) It's not often some random idiot on the Internet gets under my skin, but when they repeatedly call me a liar, I take it personally.
| Derrick: To be fair... A gravity powered device isn't really evidence of gravity. It is evidence of the conservation of energy, where the energy of a dropping object will be conserved when a device is set up to utilize that energy. But it doesn't actually evidence where that energy is coming from. | Note his use of the word "dropping". What comes to mind when you read this? Does it involve something falling to the floor (i.e. the earth)? How do we have any concept of dropping something, save for the presence of gravity? This is the question that immediately came to my mind. |
Mitchell Carpenter: Derrick um it does prove gravity if you would think about it the weight comes down slowly but it comes down so there it proves gravity Alex Flatley: "A gravity powered device isn't really evidence of gravity" What |
|
Derrick: My use of "gravity powered device" is only for the sake of the argument. The fact that it is labeled as a "gravity powered device" does not prove that it is indeed powered by gravity. Falling objects do not evidence gravity. They simply evidence that an object will fall. Gravity, the attraction of mass to mass, is not evidenced by simple falling objects, nor is it evidenced by assertion of a label. |
My interpretation of a "gravity powered device," is a device that uses gravity in some way (you know, this attraction between two or more masses) to drive something that generates power (and, after watching the video, the power generated was electricity). Also note his mention of "falling". Again, what comes to mind? Can you think of some context outside of any gravitational influence whereby something can "fall" to the ground? And, what would the ground consist of? What would be holding it together? |
| Derrick: FYI; I am not a gravity denier. There are ways to actually evidence gravity, but this is not one of them. |
Well, that's good... But let's see what he does deny. |
| Me: Derrick so, what is “fall” without gravity? How do you even define that without gravity? |
And there it is: the trigger to Derrick's land mine. |
| Derrick: That's a ridiculous question, Bill. I defined gravity, above, as "the attraction of mass to mass", so if I was to define what it is to fall without that then it would simply be when an object moves towards the ground/earth, regardless of any attraction that there may or may not be. Even colloquially we do not define falling as an attraction. Only as a movement from a higher level to a lower level. Our natural language meaning of falling does not include an attraction, nor does it evidence said attraction. You CAN evidence said attraction in other proper ways, but simply dropping an object does not do this. |
Hmm. This should be good... See if you can follow his explanation here. How would there be earth or ground for something to fall toward, without gravity? And without gravity, if an object was moving away, would it still be considered falling? Keep the definitions of the words in mind. Hmm... colloquially, I cannot even conceive of something falling without some attractive force involved - otherwise, how the fuck would it fall? If falling isn't evidence of attraction, then what the hell is? And what would "dropping" mean? |
| Me: Derrick speak for yourself - it is not a ridiculous question. I have no concept of falling in the absence of gravity. How can you even have a conception of higher or lower without first having a concept of gravity? Perhaps you presume that other people think the way you do. I personally cannot understand your perspective, which is why I asked the question. If you want to resort to ad hominem judgements, then be prepared to have your answer assessed as ridiculous. I, for one, do not know how to think of “falling” in the absence of any force. And the only force that has ever been associated with falling, for me, is gravity. So please try to refrain from attempting to dictate what reality should be for me. That’s a flat earther tactic and will not be received well. |
Already, he's under my skin. I asked a simple question, and he's triggered, already judging my question as ridiculous. Maybe he was just having a bad day, or is sensitive to people questioning him - who knows - but this popping of the cork was just the opening of the bottle. I thought his knee-jerk reaction was a bit uncalled for, and I know he knows I'm not a flat earther, so an itch in the back of my head made me consider the possibility that he is, and has been concealing it like a Poe waiting to strike. |
| Me: Derrick p.s. in the absence of gravity, there would be no Earth, so, again, how could you define falling in the absence of this attractive force between masses? |
|
| Derrick: I do not care if my responses are well received by you, Bill. I am not trying to befriend you, and I am not here to pamper your ego. If I find your argument to be ridiculous then I will tell you this, and explain why. That is NOT an ad hom. I argued that your question was ridiculous. I did not attack you as being ridiculous. You need to relearn what is an an ad hom. As for the concept of falling, you're just outright lying now. You conceived of what it is to fall long before you knew what gravity was. As a very young child you quickly learn what it means to fall, without ever having to know about gravity. The fact that Earth would not exist without the attractive force of mass, does not mean that falling and gravity cannot be separated as a concept. That's stupid. The concept of falling does neccesistate a ground or lower level to "fall" to, but the concept of falling itself does not need to be conceived with the attractive force. |
I couldn't care less if he cares if his responses are "well received by me" (gee, I didn't know I was so important!) - it just would be nice if he was civil. Befriend me? Pamper my ego? WTF? The guy must be pretty insecure to have this kind of reaction. Dismissing my question as "ridiculous" may not "technically" be an ad hominem, but he and I both knew that's where he was going. And he has yet to explain why. And here's where the accusations fly. Calling me a liar. About what, exactly? Then he begins to claim some special insight about what I supposedly knew (is he claiming omniscience?). He thinks just because I may have fallen as a very young child, that I somehow had some conception of what that meant. How the fuck could I possibly know what that meant without knowing about gravity? This seems to be the point he never gets. Challenge: define falling without invoking the concept of gravity. Stay in context, now. Ready? Go! (P.S. he meant necessitate) |
| Me: Derrick and I’m pointing out that you are in no position to dictate my reality to me. I did not have a concept of falling before I learned about gravity. Gravity was how the concepts of up and down were explained to me. Gravity was what I was taught was what makes things fall, or what it means to fall. So fuck you asshole. How’s that for an ad hominem? |
Refer to the definitions of the words. How is there even any concept of up or down without gravity? Without gravity, what would you be standing on? As you will see, he totally never read this highlighted text. He was really getting under my skin at this point. Obviously. |
| Derrick: Again, that is not an ad hom. Insult =\= ad hom. If you had said something like, you're an asshole so that makes you wrong, then THAT would have been an ad hom. You really need to relearn what is an ad hom. I am not dictating your reality to you. What I am doing is calling you out for telling a lie. You did NOT learn of falling by way of conceptualizing gravity. You learned about what it means to fall at an age where it would have been cognitively impossible for you to conceive of gravity. You did NOT learn of gravity when you were a toddler. |
At this point, insult, ad hominem, who cares? Now he's getting knit-picky. LOL (by the way, he meant ad hominem) No, he's not dictating my reality to me, he's just telling me what I knew and when I learned it. Oh, wait... Isn't that the same thing? And I never said I learned of falling by way of conceptualizing gravity (note highlighted text, above). But my understanding of those two things came at the same time, when they were explained to me (as in the highlighted text, above). |
| Me: Derrick yes I fucking did learn about falling in terms of gravity. Stop pretending to be some omniscient authority here. Again, you are in no position to tell me my personal experience and what I know. You make no attempt to communicate, only throw around accusations of lying and assert you opinion as absolute truth. You obviously have no intention of discussing anything, as you just seem to want to throw out your perspective and have it accepted by all without question. Oh, but don’t try to engage Derrick, he’ll just accuse you of being rhetorical and dishonest, because, after all, he knows everything about you. You want dishonesty? Look in the mirror. |
I'm sure I fell when I was a toddler. Did I have any concept of what that meant? No. I just knew I didn't like it when my knees hit the ground. Lying implies that I know I am saying something that is not true. But this guy refuses to accept the fact that I was no more capable of conceiving of what falling meant than what gravity was before the time when I was capable of understanding both - when they were explained to me - at the same time. Falling is when I lose my balance or when a ball drops to the floor. Gravity is an invisible force that makes that happen. Boom! Any young kid asking the question could understand that! Except maybe Derrick...? |
| Derrick: I make no claims of knowing everything about you. That is an absurd exaggeration based on what you think I'm claiming to actually know. It is another immature reaction. I do not have to be omniscient to know that you did NOT learn about falling in the terms of gravity. To make such a claim is ludicrous. As I said (which need not even be said because it is true for everyone), you learned about falling at a very young age (toddler-ish), at a time where gravity would not have made any sense to you. Why are you trying to pretend to not have learned about falling at such a young age? |
Well, he certainly did claim to know what I knew, and when. And the only way he could know that is if he was omniscient. So, that just seems like a natural extrapolation. If that's immature, then call a wahmbulance! ;-) And yet, he continues to claim to know! To use his own words, "to make such a claim is ludicrous." And his second omniscient claim is that "it is true for everyone." Really?! And how does he know that? I had no concept that this thing that was happening to me, was called "falling," until someone explained it to me - using gravity. DUH!!! Derrick must have been telepathic enough as a child to infer what falling meant (just because you experience it, doesn't mean you understand what's happening), but somehow couldn't pick up on what was causing the experience to happen. Again with the omniscience. Never mind the accusation. As if he has a fucking clue. The guy's obviously incapable of conceptualizing anybody's experience other than his own. Oh, well. His loss. |
| Me: Derrick I’m not pretending. How is it that you were incapable of grasping the idea of gravity at a young age? What did you think made you fall? When you fell for the first time, did you even understand what falling was? At some point, you had to have that explained to you. Did you never once bother to ask why things fall? Maybe that’s why you didn’t comprehend it. I’m sorry you never had somebody bother to explain it to you. Did you just think that things fell for no reason? Did you never wonder what was holding you to the floor in the first place? Look, I’m sorry that your upbringing leaves you incapable of understanding that someone else may have even learned about gravity before conceptualizing what falling means. But to assert that you have some kind of omniscient insight about how it’s not possible, and to call me a liar as a result, is simply denying your own inability to comprehend. So, go ahead, call me a liar one more time, and we’ll all get to see a true demonstration of who’s being immature. |
|
| Derrick: I will say it, frankly;... You ARE lying. The only other explanation here is that you're being too stupid to understand what is being said. You learn about what it means to fall around the age of ONE years old. You're trying to claim that you had gravity explained to you at ONE YEARS OLD, and that you understood it then. That's absurd bullshit. |
I probably had no idea what falling or gravity meant at one year old. Not until someone explained both of those things to me when I was a little older and could actually understand the words they were speaking, to understand either of those concepts. Frankly, I should be the one calling this guy a liar if he thinks he knew what falling was before someone explained to him that was what was happening to him. Maybe he hit his head. No. He apparently has a reading comprehension issue. What I claimed was that both of these things were explained to me at the same time - obviously at a time when I was old enough to understand them. What I claimed was that a toddler (well, we've regressed to a one-year-old, now) is no more capable of comprehending what falling is than what makes falling happen, before these things are explained to the child. Experiencing falling and understanding it are two different things - which appears to be where Derrick is getting hung up. He appears to be conflating experience with understanding, as his claim is that a toddler can somehow understand what falling means without it first being explained. |
So, that was the first thread. The second thread ran pretty much in parallel. But this one began with another question I asked - and I wasn't even asking him! But I guess he saw it as an invitation to jump on me, considering he didn't like my first question. Either, a comment was removed, or there was something in the video that inspired it, because I recall something about kinetic vs. potential energy, and a question entered my mind about how that would work outside of a gravity well. I've always understood potential energy in terms of gravity - because it takes energy to lift something up to a higher elevation, where it now has potential energy that can be converted to kinetic energy by pushing it over a cliff or onto a ramp and letting gravity do the rest, essentially putting into play the energy that was put into it to get it up higher. And all of these concepts - higher, lower, up, down, lift - are all concepts that only make sense to me in the context of gravity - something Derrick is incapable of comprehending, as you will see.
| Me: If lifting requires energy, then what is pulling it down? |
My second trigger question. Whoo boy!!! |
| Derrick: The fact that lift requires energy does not evidence gravity. Even in the absence of gravity (or at least in situations where gravitational forces are canceled out) energy is still required to move an object. Questions are not proofs, Bill. Simply asking what is pulling does not prove the cause of the pulling. In order to properly evidence gravity you have to show that there is an attraction between mass. You cannot assert it a priori. |
But then what is lift? To raise something higher? Higher in relation to what? What is giving you this concept of higher vs. lower? No one lifts away, or lifts out - they lift up. What is up in the absence of gravity, exactly? The guy will never, ever address this question! No, questions are not proof(s), Captain Obvious. Did he just pull that out of his ass because he didn't have any actual shit to throw at me? In order to lift something, you must be pulling (or pushing) it away from something else. So, again, what's pulling it back? Are we going to switch to magnetism now? |
Me: Derrick but you’re missing the context, as “lift” has no meaning without an opposing force. So, that would naturally lead to the question of, what is the pulling force? Yes, it takes energy to move an object. But the word lift was used, not move. And I believe there was a reference to kinetic vs. potential energy. If you lift an object - which implies that you have a grasp on the object - then release the object, it will fall (there’s that word again) back to it’s original location. If we’re talking about moving objects in the absence of gravity, if you were to put an object in motion and release it, it will keep moving in the same direction and will not return. No concept of lifting or falling in the absence of gravity. So, it seems we’re back to square one. As for questions as proof - nobody is suggesting that. A question is just a question. How could that even be confused as evidence (or “proof”) of anything? Where is that even coming from? |
Keep in mind, the context of this discussion is the "gravity powered device". If he thinks he's so smart, he should have no trouble recognizing Newton's Laws, here. Out of left field, I suppose. Nobody even suggested a question was proof of anything. It's like he's trying to taunt me. |
| Derrick: So now you're not even being honest to the argument, and are trying to take on some form of innocent inquiry. It's pathetic. Your question was obviously meant as an implied argument. The question implies that there must be a force involved and is the reason for energy to be required for lift. You are presenting this implied argument as a means to prove your position. It makes no sense for you now to play dumb on this. The fact that you used the word lift does not automatically mean that a necessary apposing force is at play. In natural language the use of lift is only meant to convey a change in position from low to high, with a necessary force for movement. The attraction of mass to mass is not required . What you appear to be doing, rather slowly and subtlely, is shifting the argument from that of evidencing gravity, to evidencing falling. This is absurd because I was never making an argument against the fact that an object will fall. Evidencing the downward motion of objects (that we know as "falling") does not evidence that which we call gravity. |
Oh? Again with the omniscience claim. Who does this guy think he is? Yes, the question implies there must be a force involved ... after all, it includes the word lift! And, no - he said it himself - a question is not proof of anything. So, no, I am in no way using it as proof of anything - that's his straw man story. Presumptuous must be his middle name. In the context of physical objects in three-dimensional space... yes, it does, actually. Remember, we're talking about gravity. And, where do we get the concept of low and high when standing on the ground? He's moving another goal post in his straw man argument (just not so subtly). Shortly, he'll steer this down a road to suggest I am equating gravity with falling - as if they're the same thing. LOL! Again, refer to what gives us the context of what falling means. From a toddler's perspective... |
| Me: Derrick dude, you’re the one driving this down a track at all. In my experience, colloquial or otherwise, the concepts of up, down, higher, lower, lift, drop and fall have no meaning without first having a concept of gravity. Any other way you want to take this or want to try to spin it, is only speaking volumes about you. Sorry if I somehow bruised your ego, but if all you want to do is argue - which is what seems evident to me - then you’re going to have to pick your fight with someone else. Whatever this game is you’re trying to play, you really should lay out the rules before you try to recruit. |
He's not only trying to steer the thing, he's hijacked it! He doesn't want to argue, he needs to! Apparently... |
| Derrick: The concept of falling is learned at a very young age. Like toddler ages. The concept of gravity is too much for those young people learning what it means to fall. I am not spinning anything. I am presenting argumentation for your absurdities. Nothing has been spun about. You're being a child for now trying to throw back the ego comment, which does not apply to anything I've said. It only applied when you felt that you needed to be treated better when being argued with. Throwing it back now is just immature. |
The experience of falling is experienced at a very young age - not the understanding. I doubt a toddler is capable of understanding what that means. All a toddler knows is that it is troublesome to walk, and crawling can be painful. But what Derrick is doing, is trying to find some way to justify his opinion. Facts be damned. Throw back? "Nuh uh, you are!" "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL Maybe he never should have made a childish comment about my ego that could be thrown back. This guy definitely needs a mirror. |
| Me: Derrick you’re doing a good job of creating your own reality here. You judging something as absurd does not make it so. The idea of falling has no meaning outside of an attractive force. End of story. What falling means was explained to me as the result of gravity. Do you as an adult know what gravity IS? You don’t have to know what gravity is to understand that it is what makes things fall, and what gives us the concept of falling in the first place. I understood it then as I understand it now, so stop trying validate your own claims about what you think toddlers understand by implying some sort of authority or omniscience. If one is old enough to learn the word “fall” and what it means, they’re old enough to understand the explanation that includes gravity. Like changing channels on a TV, you don’t have to understand how it does it to understand how it behaves. I literally cannot find any other way to define the concept of falling without invoking some kind of attractive force. It’s meaningless outside of the concepts of up and down, which are defined by gravity. The only reason we even have any concept of up or down or falling, is because of gravity. So stop trying to paint me as some kind of idiot, because it’s not helping your position - whatever it is. It just seems like you’re struggling to try to find some way to avoid being called out as wrong - even going so far as arguing points I never made, and trying to suck me into an argument you’ve invented. If you’re trying to set me up for a strawman, it’s just not going to work, because I’ll just keep calling you out on your bullshit. |
That's because falling, within the context of the subject at hand (remember, gravity?), cannot be defined in the absence of gravity. I don't think he even read this far. And it is bullshit. |
| Derrick: Every time somebody used "end of story" on the internet, I immediately can only ever see them as a child. Well done. I am not asserting absurdities. I am presenting arguments for them being as such. You are not refuting those arguments. You are, in fact, doing the very thing you keep accusing me of doing, by repeatedly asserting your claims over and over again without argumentation. I argued for why the concept of gravity is not known when you learn of falling. You simply reasserted that it is, in the flimsy basis of me not being capable of knowing what I argued for. Technically an ad hom. You learned of falling, of what it means to fall, and when a fall happens, etc, at an age somewhere around the time when you were learning to prevent yourself from falling. This young age would have made it impossible for you to grasp the concept of gravity. Even if you were told that gravity caused you to fall, it would not mean anything to you. It would have been a belief without conceptual justification. It's really sad that I am having to argue about how a toddler would not be capable of understanding what is gravity. |
Wah! Can't help him there. And I didn't ask a ridiculous question. I'm sorry - where did I make that accusation? My mistake: I keep trying to explain what he doesn't understand. It just sounds repetitive to those who don't care. He asserted that I can't learn what falling and gravity mean at the same time. He also asserted I could conceptualize falling before gravity. Let's see how many times he repeats that claim! I learned of the experience of falling, yes. Did I know that that's what it was? Did I know the word? The concept? No. Not until it was explained to me ... AND IN THE CONTEXT OF GRAVITY! And I was told. And it meant something to me. Like I said, I didn't need to understand how it works (any more than I understand how a magnet picks up a paper clip), but I knew that's what made me fall. But, then, I guess I'm just fucking repeating myself again. And again. And again. It's like I'm talking to an infant. Or an empty sack. |
| Me: Derrick oh, so now asking a question is asserting something? Got it. I guess I made a mistake in assuming you might be ok with questions. Obviously not. But until you can come up with a way to define up, down, lift, drop, higher, lower, and falling in some magical way that somehow does not refer to an orientation defined by the direction of gravitational pull, then maybe then you’ll be able to salvage your statements and claims from the “ridiculous” pile. And, yes, it’s really sad that you were incapable of grasping the idea of gravity as a toddler. |
My first question should have been my first clue, but he hadn't answered that before I asked the second one...which wasn't even directed at him. |
| Derrick: You did NOT grasp the idea of gravity as a toddler. You lying sack. I've seen some real pieces of grandiose delusions, but this takes the fucking cake. Do you not know what is a toddler? We're talking about the age of ONE YEARS OLD. You could not have been able to grasp the concept of gravity at one years old. You learn to walk (and thus learn about falling) before you even learn to talk. You're NOT grasping the idea of gravity at that age. |
Enough with the omniscient claims already!!! Jesus! Talk about repetitive! And again with the accusation. What a Dick! The delusion is all his. One years? With an s? So, we're regressing now. From toddler to infant. Yeah, I experience falling. Then, when I understand words, it's fucking explained to me - right along with the concept of gravity! Fuck! Pete and Repeat were walking down the street... Oh! It's Derrick again! |
Derrick: "Up" Towards the sky, or a higher position. "Down" Towards the ground, or a lower position. "Lift" To raise Up from a lower position. "Drop" To let fall from a higher position. (The rest is just reiterations of the same) These definitions do NOT require that you understand that the orientation is defined by the direction of gravity. There is an orientation, yes, but the role of gravity for that orientation is not required to be known to understand that orientation. |
Without gravity, where is the sky? You wouldn't have a planet to stand on, and nothing to give you a reference for "up". Without gravity, where is the ground? What is up without gravity? Dude. Higher, relative to what? It's like the guy just stopped thinking. Yep. Then, let's pretend we haven't been talking about gravity since this started. What other reference is there to define these concepts? Anybody? Should we ask a toddler? Bueller? Bueller? |
Me: Derrick now who’s being dishonest?
Me: Derrick by your logic, I would not have been able to grasp the concept of falling at that age. Look, asshole, I learned the concept of falling and gravity at the same time. And if that is just too much of a fucking reach for you to grasp, that’s not my problem. But call me a liar one more time, and I’ll have you booted from this group.
|
I get so tired of repeating myself. I guess it's a bad habit. Maybe I am insane. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. But the thing is, when you do get a different result, then they call you persistent. Perhaps I'm just hoping I'm persistent. Or, perhaps the only winning move, is not to play. The guy just ain't gettin' it. |
| Derrick: Justin, I would like you to know, that I am calling Bill a liar. He is claiming something that we all know is an impossibility. If calling him a liar for this is enough to get me booted then so be it. I will not stand by and be threatened like this. Bill, nothing I've said leads to the logic of not being able to understand falling at that age. The concept of gravity is world's apart, conceptually, from that of gravity. You don't have to have falling explained to you, so understanding that you can fall is something that a 1y\o can handle without explanation. This is not true for gravity. |
Too late - I already sent him a private message. I wouldn't be surprised if Derrick had already received a reply before writing this, just to make it look like he was tattling, first. Now, children! Behave! But gravity isn't that hard to comprehend (except for the statement he just made). After all, it is the cause to the effect. Why is it so hard to conceive they could be learned at the same time? And I guess you missed the part where I repeatedly tried to explain to you, repeatedly (did I say repeatedly?), that they were explained to me at the same time. >sigh!< By the way, I've highlighted the text where he outright equates understanding with experience. |
Derrick: I should not have to explain it like this, but maybe this is what you're missing here..... You cannot begin to understand a concept like gravity if you cannot even yet understand the words needed to describe that concept to you. Toddlers cannot understand the words needed to explain to them what is gravity. You did NOT conceive of gravity all on your own, as a baby. That is an absurd claim. One that keeps me thinking that you truly are conflating the conception of falling with that of gravity. |
Well, OK, but it is not I who is missing something here. Which is pretty obvious by now. Same with falling!!! See, I just explained this to him ... again ... I never claimed to understand gravity (or falling!) prior to it being explained to me! This guy is running on his own track, and there's just no derailing him. I never claimed I conceived of it on my own (as evidenced by the text I highlighted early in the thread). Just how daft is this guy? And, here's his favorite straw man... And now he has moved the goal post back, again, from infant to baby. |
Justin: I was a little confused by this to be honest..
|
I'm confused about what was confusing to Justin.
|
Justin: Yes.. even a child knows he's falling, probably doesn't know why of course but is aware of it.
|
A child knows of the experience of falling, but does a child know that is what we call "falling"? No. NOT UNTIL IT IS EXPLAINED TO THE CHILD. |
Derrick: No need to get involved with the argument if you don't want, Justin. I just wanted an admin to know that Bill has threatened to get me booted for calling him a liar.
|
And rightly so. And Justin was already fully informed in private. I made sure of that, anticipating exactly this response from Derrick. |
| End flat Earth: Derrick & Bill I see where you gentlemen may have misunderstood each other. You are both smart as whips , but wires get crossed sometimes but you're still on the same team . I (in my judgment) don't see where the word lair necessary this dose just seem like an honest misunderstanding... I would very much like for you guys to give fist bumps and continue fighting FEs.. not each other. |
Now, to get Derrick to see. We may be on the same side, but he's not on my team. Sorry. This is for you, Derrick. Pay attention. Not a good idea to get us in the same room. Until I get an apology for calling me a liar, there's no telling where my fist might land. |
Derrick: I've tried to tackle the very probable issue of a misunderstanding, but every time I do it gets dismissed before it is examined. It Is one thing to say that a 1y\o can understand what it means to fall, and even understand that movement and grasping can prevent falling, but then it is another thing entirely to say that a 1y\o can understand the concept of gravity (the attraction of their mass to the mass of Earth). This is not something a toddler could work out themselves, and it would require some explanation, of which the toddler would not understand the words being spoken. The absurdity of thinking that such a thing could be understood at that age is what makes me think that Bill is not talking about the same thing, but every time I try to address that he doesn't seem to think that's the problem. |
I'd like to see where he even attempted this. Because I've captured this entire conversation, and I have yet to see that. Have you, dear reader? The claim that a one-year-old can understand what falling means is as fallacious as claiming that the child can understand gravity. A one-year-old experiences the effect of falling within a gravity environment, but has no concept of either of these things, only the behavior. And here we go again, with him wielding a straw man to suggest that I somehow implied, stated, or otherwise claimed that the understanding of gravity came before the explanation (though it is his assertion that the understanding of falling, can). If he would only bother to read, he would see that from the very beginning, if I stated anything along these lines, it was that a child can understand neither of these things until they are explained to it. And Derrick has incrementally moved the goal post by claiming a younger child in an attempt to make his absurd arguments seem less absurd. And he doesn't seem to think his arguments are absurd, and also appears to pretend to not understand where we get our concepts of up and down. |
| Justin: Derrick.. I'm the admin, I have to intervene sometimes.. it's my job. The thing is , Bill is a known & trusted friend who has been an Editor the EFE home page since the beginning.. he my not be a mod here but he's got some pull, and one thing I KNOW for a fact is he is not a liar, otherwise he wouldn't have control of my page. Know didn't appreciate the threat, but he didn't appreciate being called a liar when he wasn't being intentionally misleading . |
Thank you. But, Derrick's omniscience fantasy tells him I was being intentionally misleading. And he believes it, and feels justified. |
Derrick: He has even gone so far as to challenge me to define words such as "up" and "down" without mentioned the concept of gravity, as if one could not have a conception of one without the other. A challenge that I did take on. The unwillingness to separate the phenomenon of falling, with that of the concept of gravity, make me very skeptical about coming to an understand if any miscommunication, if any. That part was pretty clear, and has the same problem as the learning toddler problem. So while I would like to bury this and move on, and cannot accept your opinion of Bill in comparison to myself. Sorry. |
So... do it, then. And failed, miserably. LOL Straw man. Again, gravity is the cause, falling is the effect. Not the same thing. Recall, it was you who constructed that straw man. It seems he doesn't want to understand - I think he just doesn't want to admit to being wrong. He doesn't have to accept Justin's opinion; just apologize for calling me a liar! That's all he had to do. |
Derrick: What would you call it then, Justin? He is claiming to have conceived of gravity at the same time he was leaning about what it means to fall. If he is not being intentionally dishonest, to boasting his intellect on this issue, then he is simply delusional and has convinced himself of a feat that is just plain impossible. I'm sorry. |
Derrick appears to be intentionally misinterpreting everything I've said, and twisting words to fit his arguments, just so he can justify calling me a liar. |
Justin: I don't think he meant that he "knew" or "understood" what gravity did and how it functions as a toddler.. but yeah even toddlers can "perceive" the effect of gravity. |
Exactly! See, Justin gets it. |
Derrick: Perceive the affect of course. I actually made that argument already too. The AFFECT of gravity is that of falling. Toddlers can perceive falling. What cannot be known at that age, of learning what it means to fall, is the cause of falling known as gravity. When I made this argument it was ignored. I do believe that he HAS tried to argued that he understood what gravity does at that age. He has repeatedly talked of having grasped the concept. |
Oh, God, here we go AGAIN. <eye roll> No, he argued a toddler could understand it. (He means EFFECT - not to be confused with AFFECT. As in, gravity can affect things in a number of ways. One effect of gravity is to make things fall. English 101 for those who missed it in grade school) And if you're old enough to grasp the concept of falling, then you're old enough to grasp the concept of gravity. |
Derrick: Imagine if a flerf had posted about having flown all around Antarctica and seen the ice wall go on forever. And then I presented an argument for how they simply could not have seen the ice wall go on forever. And then they just kept asserting over and over that they did see the wall go on forever, and said that I could not tell them what they saw. Wouldn't we call THAT lying? I don't see the difference here, tbh. |
I wouldn't call it lying. I know it's not true, but I have no way of knowing whether the flat earther believes it, so I would have no basis for calling him a liar, unless I had evidence that suggested he actually knew the ice wall didn't go on forever and the earth isn't flat, before making the claim. If Derrick can't see the difference, then then no wonder he seems so confused! |
End flat Earth: I'm got step out of this for a little bit while I go full Judge Judy on this thread till Bill chimes back in. |
|
Derrick: The ONLY reason that I have not yet just let this go, and accepted the ridiculousness of Bill the super baby that could concieve of gravity while they were learning to walk, the only reason I don't just laugh that off is because of how they are attempting to use that silly flex as part of their argument for the concepts of things such as falling being inseparable from the concept of gravity, and thus supporting the argument of how a thing simply falling evidences gravity itself. |
(he meant conceive) Straw man, straw man, straw man. Here, have a match... |
| Me: Maybe I have to explain things in terms even a toddler can understand. Derrick is missing something, twisting my words, and calling me a liar and I won’t have it. Derrick has failed miserably to explain how the concepts of up, down, lift, drop and fall can be defined in any capacity outside of a gravitational reference. There is nothing to give reference to those concepts if there was no force causing planets to form and people to stand on their feet. So, Derrick, this is my last attempt to get it through your head. You said, and I quote, “toddlers cannot understand the words needed to explain to them what is gravity.” You have also tried to tell me that I could, however, understand the concept of falling. If a toddler cannot understand the words needed to explain to them what is gravity, then what magical property enables them to understand the words needed to explain to them what is falling? You contradict yourself. I could no more understand what falling is than what gravity is - I would be incapable of comprehending either if I was too young to understand. What you seem to be missing, or for some reason simply cannot accept (perhaps due to a rigid belief?), is that I learned what falling was when I learned about gravity. And if you would actually READ my previous comments, I wouldn’t have to repeat here that you don’t have to understand what gravity is, to understand the basic concept. It was explained to me as an invisible force that pulls everything to the floor. Plain and simple - any toddler with the ability to understand those words could understand. Like a VCR, you don’t have to know how it works to know what it does. Now, if you’d like to review what was actually written and apologize for your misrepresentations of me (like, “you did NOT conceive of gravity all on your own” - something I NEVER claimed - nor did I conceive of falling on my own!), then I may listen. Otherwise, I’m done with this stupid argument and will simply just not engage with you again. If nothing else, however, you owe me an apology for calling me a liar. And if you can’t give me that, then just don’t ever address me again. Got it? |
One final attempt. Three guesses as to whether it made any difference. Reading does appear to be rather difficult for him. Either that, or he has been intentionally dishonest about his interpretations. I doubt he read this far. Although, he does later make reference to this one statement later on. But he never acknowledged this. Maybe he was just skimming. |
Derrick: I have to say it again, out of sheer integrity, that Bill IS lying here.... Again. He just tried to say that I failed to explain how "up" "down" etc can be defined outside of the reference if gravity, and this is demonstrable false, and he knows this because I met his challenge of giving those definitions, with a short word on how a gravitational reference is not needed. I'll be back in a minute to paste that comment.... |
And, this is as close to an apology as I'll ever get. He's stuck. Unmovable. Married to his beliefs, just like a flat earther or a creationist. Just as rigid. Just as closed. Just as blind. Again, his failure was miserable. |
Derrick: "Up" Towards the sky, or a higher position. "Down" Towards the ground, or a lower position. "Lift" To raise Up from a lower position. "Drop" To let fall from a higher position. (The rest is just reiterations of the same)
These definitions do NOT require that you understand that the orientation is defined by the direction of gravity. There is an orientation, yes, but the role of gravity for that orientation is not required to be known to understand that orientation.
|
Really? Cut-and-paste? Most people don't like to brag about their failures. I'm not going to repeat myself again on this point - there's enough iteration happening elsewhere in this thread, and you can review this in my side comments, above. |
Derrick: I also made it clear, BEFORE talking about needing to have gravity explained, that a toddler does not need to have falling explained to them. You mean what it means to fall by, um.... FALLING. I'm not the one twisting shit up here, Bill. YOU ARE. |
But, see, that's where he's still wrong. And by that logic, if a toddler doesn't need an explanation to understand falling, then it doesn't need an explanation for gravity. So, which is it? It's like he's saying I drank too much because I look blurry to him. "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL |
Me: Derrick Again, your dishonest answers fail miserably to define the words in the absence of gravity. What the hell is "towards the sky" if you don't have fucking gravity to put a fucking planet together? You've got some serious cognitive disorder, and I've had enough of your bullshit. Own your shit or get the fuck out of my face, asshole. |
Really. |
Derrick: You did NOT learn what gravity was when you learned about falling. UNLESS you are using those two things as the same thing. You learned about falling by actually falling as a baby\toddler. The concept of gravity comes much MUCH later. Derrick: Are you guys reading this shit!? "What the hell is "towards the sky" if you don't have fucking gravity to put a fucking planet together?" This is the guy you're defending here, Justin. :\ |
No. I learned about both. Again, I... Oh, never fucking mind! He hasn't followed me the first dozen times. Because Derrick isn't! Yeah, Justin. You're defending the guy who actually understands logic and reason and what holds a planet together to give us the concepts of up, down, and falling. |
Me: Somebody watching me fall as a toddler could understand what falling was, but do please tell me how the fuck would I know what it was? I learned what falling meant when I learned what gravity meant, asshole. Quit trying to dictate my reality to me - you weren't fucking there. You might want to go for a brain scan, too, to make sure there's not some tumor in your head fucking up your reading comprehension. |
|
Derrick: The planet could have been shat out by a magical pink unicorn, and there would still be a "towards the sky" The process of gravitational attraction to form the planet not needed. Still a planet. Still a sky. Still an orientation from the ground to the sky. |
But it wasn't. In this universe, we only have planets because of gravity. Did this guy's brain just suddenly shut down? Uh, gravitational attraction is the only thing we know of that creates planets. What universe is this guy from? |
Me: Yeah Justin, this is the idiot who thinks he can tell me what I know. I can't believe this guy is not a creationist, or a flat earther, or both. Me: THERE WOULDN'T BE A FUCKING SKY WITHOUT A PLANET DIPSHIT! |
Bingo! Bingo, bingo! |
Derrick: Bill absolutely MUST be conflating falling with gravity. There is no other explanation. You understood what it meant to fall because you just experienced falling. You understood that what it meant to fall was to have that experience again. You however did NOT yet know that there was a cause called gravity. This is so fucking stupid, guys. |
Straw man, straw man. Straw! Straw! (Sing it with me!) Yes, I experienced falling. No, I had no fucking clue what it meant. None whatsoever, until it was explained to me. But, never mind, asshole. Just never fucking mind. Oh, he's SO CLOSE! |
Derrick: Of course there needs to be a planet, but Where the planet came from is irrelevant. Derrick: One CAN tell you what it is that you DO NOT know, if and when that thing is not possible to be known. It is not possible for a toddler to conceive of what is gravity. Derrick: So... Flat earthers claim to KNOW that the Earth is flat. I guess we cannot tell them that they do not know this. .... Right?:\ Creationists KNOW that the world was created. Guess we cannot tell them that they do not know this.... Right? :\ |
WTF? Where the planet came from? What the literal fuck? Is his brain bleeding now? (word salad) It never ends with the toddler bullshit. Man! Broken record! He's totally stuck! Wrong. We can tell them they're wrong, but we cannot tell them what they believe, or what they learned, or when. They can claim to know, and we can tell them what they know is wrong, but we cannot call them liars, unless we know they know it's not flat. Same with creationists. |
Me: Derrick "It is not possible for a toddler to conceive of what is gravity." You can't stop beating this dead horse. Not once did I ever make such a claim. But YOU have claimed that a toddler CAN somehow conceive of what falling is! You cannot be serious, and thus I cannot take you thus. Just stop talking to me, You have nothing to contribute here and aren't even bothering to examine your misunderstanding, and I will not tolerate your dishonesty any further. What a joke, YOU calling ME a liar.
|
Beating it and beating it and beating the holy lifeless end-of-living shit out of it. But will Derrick look in the mirror? Stay tuned... |
Me: End flat Earth Just FYI, here's where it all began. And he still hasn't provided a definition of "fall" that can be described in the absence of gravity. What is "higher" without some gravitational reference? What ground or earth would there be without gravity pulling it together? Falling is, plain and simple, a concept that only exists due to the effect of gravity. There's just no other way to define it. And, yet, he insists I can somehow conceive of what falling is before I'm old enough to understand the effects of gravity. LOL And he calls me a liar. |
I put a screen shot of the first question I asked, along with Derrick's first "ridiculous" reply. And the toddler. Did I mention the fucking toddler? |
Me: Derrick Just for fun, I'll leave you with this: https://www.livescience.com/18101-infants-grasp-gravity.html Enjoy! LIVESCIENCE.COM Infants Grasp Gravity with Innate Sense of Physics |
|
Derrick: Oh my non-god.... Did you even read the article, Bill??? They are doing the same thing that you're doing. They are speaking of falling as if IT itself IS gravity. They use the word interchangable with the word gravity. You don't even have to read very far to see them doing this. They do it right from the start as the caption to the image. ... "As early as 2 months, babies grasp the idea that unsupported objects will fall (yes, gravity)." The article is actually supporting what I've been saying, that babies have the ability to grasp the concept of what it means to fall. However, despite what those idiots are also saying, falling is not itself gravity. We don't say " I gravitied to the ground" for good reason. Falling is the affect of gravity Gravity is the cause of falling They are NOT the same thing. Derrick: The article does NOT speak of babies grasping the concept of actual gravity, THE ATTRACTION OF MASS TO MASS, whatsoever because they are not capable of such grasping. Derrick: Again you're lying. You've been arguing this whole damn time for you having learned and grasped the concept of gravity at the same time that you learn about falling. You will not even entertain the notion of separating them, or the notion that you may be conflating them. You just keep projecting everything you're doing, such as not being willing to examine your error here. |
Yeah, I read it. Fancy that: a science publication that says pretty much the same thing I did, and it still doesn't shake his straw man. He must really like that thing. I wonder if he fucks it in the ass at night. Either that, or he's making the same misinterpretation. Hmm... Which is more likely? And, no, they don't use the words gravity and falling interchangeably. They just basically point out that falling is a result of gravity. In fact, he quoted the line, but left out the link to a gravity article, which I suspect he didn't read. There wasn't much there, but still... We don't say that, because it would be stupid to make up words. Just like his straw man. Yes! (well, he meant effect) He got it! Awesome! Hey, maybe there's hope for him, yet. Yeah, let's just rewrite the article to fit Derrick's interpretation, so he can be right. <eye roll> <sigh> He should just record this so he can play it over and over again, since he's not actually reading anything I wrote. (he meant, falling for his straw man) Did someone say, projecting? Give this guy a mirror! |
Derrick: This line says it all, Bill..... "And, yet, he insists I can somehow conceive of what falling is before I'm old enough to understand the effects of gravity." ..... Read this carefully.. twice.... THEY ARE THE SAME THING! Falling IS the affect of gravity. The affect of falling is gravity. You are old enough (as a baby) to understand falling because you're experiencing falling, of yourself and of objects. THE CAUSE of that falling (gravity) is not yet understood because that required cognitive abilities not yet present in a baby. You do not experience gravity. You experience the affects of gravity. |
Reading. Reading again. Hell, I'll even read it again. Wait! I wrote the damn thing! What? Wait. Didn't he just say they were NOT the same thing? He even said, and I quote, "The concept of gravity is world's apart, conceptually, from that of gravity." I'm sure he meant to say the concept of gravity differs from that of falling, so rather than judge him stupid and berate him (like he has been doing to me), I'll exercise some intelligence and infer what he meant. But anyway, I swear he's beginning to believe his own straw man. First, he tells me (as I have told him) that gravity is the cause, and falling is the effect. Now he is arguing they are the same? Is this some twisted game of aversion or diversion? Weird! (Seriously, he means effect) Old enough to experience falling, not old enough to understand it. Shit, did I really just have to repeat myself again? Damn it! Right. And later on, you can actually understand what those two things are and how they are related. Oh, he's getting so close! (*effects) |
Derrick: Here's a challenge for you... And me... From now on there will be no use of "fall\falling" or "gravity" I define "gravity" as the attraction between two or more bodies of mass. Or more simply mass attracting mass. I define "falling" as the motion of a free object towards the ground. Babies can easily understand when a free object motions towards the ground. They cannot understand that the cause of this is that mass is attracting mass. |
Rather than avoid learning what they mean? No matter - this topic is closed. That's a good start. If only he can enhance his understanding of how we got the idea of "towards the ground" to conceptualize the idea of "falling" in the first place. And babies (to stick with the final goal post position) have no idea - no concept whatsoever - that what they experience is understood as "falling", or why. |
Me: Derrick um... yeah ... falling is the effect of gravity. Glad you finally got that. GLAD YOU READ IT TWICE!
How about you actually make some effort to understand everything I’ve written up to this point, instead of imposing your own personal perception on it. Just stop writing to me. Like I said, you’re not contributing anything. I’m not reading another word from you unless it’s an apology.
|
Just highlighting this. It's the closest I've come to lying in this whole thread. I meant it when I wrote it, but I'm weak. LOL |
Derrick: I'm not going to appologize. You can the that and shove it up your ass. I'm not in the wrong here. You said things that you knew not to be true, so I was justified in saying that they were lies. Now you're saying stupid shit, trying hard to make it not sound stupid. A "personal perception" of what is said IS one's understanding of what was said. What you're really asking me to do is to have the understanding that you want me to have, NOT my own. You don't care about any effort, so long as I say what you want to here. Childish. I've been saying that falling is the affect if gravity this whole time, because it goes against what you've been saying. Gravity is the cause, and falling is the affect. They are not the same thing, and just because a baby understands what it means for an free object to motion towards the ground does not mean that they automatically understand that the cause of that affect what the attraction of the two masses. I'm contributing an argument. You just keep dismissing the argument and reasserting the nonsense that I'm arguing against. Be willfully ignorant of my words all you want. You're not getting an underserved appology. |
And, there it is. (he meant apologize) That's OK. I don't have to believe his omniscience fantasy. And his point is...? This is quite telling. He must have no mirrors in his home. What a coincidence! So have I! (he meant effect) (he meant effect!) (really - he meant effect) There's really not much left of this dead straw horse. Again, no mirrors... Well, it's not undeserved. After all, he did call me a liar. |
| Me: Derrick Then fuck off. I never lied to you, but it's not my fault you are incapable of considering anyone else's experience but your own. You never even bothered to make any attempt to understand what I was saying - all you did was keep asserting how you believed I conflated falling with gravity and accusing me of lying. So again, fuck you and the asshole you came out of, you useless waste of shit. | And stay fucked off. There is so much more useful shit in this universe. |
| Me: Derrick And it's EFFECT, not AFFECT, idiot! |
The end. |
| Derrick: More lies. It's like all you ever do now. There have been numerous attempts by me to try to figure out how or why you were saying things that were both absurd and untrue. I presented several theories as to why you would be thinking what you do, and several times I tried to get you to understand how your words made no sense. It was YOU that never bothered to entertain any of that. You dismissed it all right out of hand. You project more than anyone I know. You keep wanting me to stop responding, but I never said that I would. YOU'VE said more than once now that YOU would stop responding, but then you never do. I do not have a desire to stop responding so long as you keep lying about what I've said, and misrepresenting this entire conversation. On the subject of Affect and Effect, that is arguable. I consider Affect to be the proper use here, as the result of falling is an action, and not a noun. I was specific in my use of the two because of this. (Notice how I give an argument for this, instead of just asserting and insulting. You should try this some times. Will make you look far less like a tool) |
Oh, wait! There's more! Did you see them? I didn't see them. The only reason they seemed untrue to him was because they didn't fit with his fantasy. Funny - that's what I was doing for him. Hmm... Hmm! I guess it's true: no mirrors for Derrick! Yes, thanks for owning up to that. Twice. I highlighted them. What can I say? Derrick won't stop, and I'm weak. LOL I never lied about what you said. You were the one that repeatedly called me a liar, remember? And talk about misrepresentation - you da king! No, it really isn't. They're quite clearly defined. And he's wrong. And that's not even my opinion. You can't just put a verb where a noun belongs and still call it a verb and say you are arguably right. OMFG - is this guy a covert flat earther? Says the toolbox. |
There's just nothing more to be said here. No point in heckling the comedian after he's already finished the joke. All I can do is laugh at him. The effect of Derrick's ignorance is that it affects the way people perceive him. Therefore, it is best to let this last comment stand. After all, it pretty well summarizes all that is Derrick, so much more than I ever could.
There's no point in including the brief third conversation that happened in parallel. It's just more of the same repetitive noise - a continuation of his straw man where he insists I said that gravity and falling were the same thing. OMG, I will never think of toddlers the same again! But when I do, you can rest assured, I will be thinking of Derrick.
It has become evident to me that he must be suffering from some kind of cognitive or psychological disorder, so I am no longer quite as disturbed by his deliberate misrepresentations of me (especially after seeing his final comment, where he basically tried to justify using words in a distinctly incorrect manner). The disconnects in his reasoning are quite the evidence of some kind of disturbance occurring in his head. At first, he seemed like such a stickler for proper usage, by saying things like, "we don't say 'I gravitied to the ground' for good reason." Never mind that "gravitied" isn't a word. But then he goes on to assert that "falling is the affect of gravity," and then attempts to validate his grammatical error. After all, we don't say, "cause and affect," for good reason. But then again, Derrick appears to have a problem with reasoning, reading comprehension, conceptualization, and seeing beyond his own rigid beliefs regarding learning.
He sees me as a liar as a result of his apparent inability to distinguish between someone telling them their experience, and someone intentionally giving a false account of an experience - never mind his inability to separate experiencing something from understanding something. I presented my experience, and he chooses to see me as a liar. There's nothing I can do about that, as he chooses not to change his opinion, so there's no point in fighting it. And, as a result of his apparent mental/cognitive issues, I can't help but begin to have some compassion for him, and feel sorry for him. Therefore, I guess it's time to just ignore him and move on so he can deal with his issues, undisturbed. After all, he's just some random guy on the Internet who got under my skin. It's just annoying that he doesn't seem to realize that he's on the wrong side of reason, because it is frustrating enough to try to explain things to a flat earther, and it's just sad when someone on your side isn't even qualified to be on the team.
No comments:
Post a Comment