BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:30 AM

Ah -- thank you for clarification. I had got somewhat lost among all the verbiage of accusation and counter-accusation and.....

Ho-hum. Both too early & too late to go back to bed. Think I'll have a nice cup of tea and a blue cheese sarnie.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:13 AM

That comes across as saying that I did.
Twist, twist, wriggle, wriggle.

What exactly do you object to Dave?
I haven't objected to anything have I?

Michael - What are you on about? The phrase was the the holy people in my family did not foist their beliefs on me. And that was in answer to a comment that Keith made in the first place. He then chose to take that as meaning that he did foist his beliefs. His problem, not mine. I have not accused anyone of foisting anything on anyone. I have accused Keith of being a liar, which this last escapade further reinforces; a cheat, which his excuses underline and an idiot, which is just my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:01 AM

In any event, surely such accusations as "foisting of beliefs" are misplaced. Discussion forums exist for the purpose of expressing one's beliefs and opinions. If one is to be inhibited from doing so by accusations of endeavouring to 'foist', or some synonym thereof, such beliefs and opinions, then what is the purpose of discussion at all?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:59 AM

Dave, you say you did not care that I refused to reveal details of my faith to you, but you did remark on it a couple of times.
In a reply to me you said that at least "holy men" in your family did not foist their beliefs on you.
That comes across as saying that I did.

Neither Pete nor I have done that so I am pleased that you do not make that false accusation.
What exactly do you object to Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:47 AM

Sorry - Me at 04:15 AM

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 04:15 AM

You wanted to know the detail of my belief.
I wanted to know which bits of the bible you believe. A valid question in the circumstances.

You did not like it when I refused.
I really could not give a shit whether you answer or not.

You then say I am foisting my beliefs on you
I have never accused you you of that. Links please.

So, 2 lies and one half truth in one post.

and you say it is me who is an idiot!
Wrong again. A liar, a cheat and an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:31 AM

"There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence."

Love it. Thanks pete!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:25 AM

Shim, there is no evidence for or against.

It is not supposition but a fact that, if God exists, He would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:18 AM

"No. God would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created."

That's pure supposition and you've just made it up to avoid having to answer awkward questions, KofH. Evidence, please!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:03 AM

Steve,
Indeed, he breaks so many laws of nature that the possibility of his existence is vanishingly small.
No. God would be outside and above the laws of nature that He would have created.

Musket,
But stop thinking people are thick eh?
I do not.
Neither believers nor atheists have a monopoly on intelligence or ignorance.
we all know that ultimately, religious faith is built on fairy tales.
I do not know or accept that.
But religion is a proxy for bigotry,
False assertion.
My church for instance is famously tolerant, and consider the anti-faith bigotry expressed by Dave in his rant against "holy men."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:58 AM

"Evo athiests"

That's new one.

Do we get to wear silly hats?

Anyway. As its Good Friday, I need to get practicing. My back is a bit stiff today and I need to be supple in order to deliver my annual impersonation in the pub tonight.

"Jesus on a rubber cross."

Keith. Do keep up. Nobody can convince people they are deluded. It is a contradiction in terms. But stop thinking people are thick eh? Of course faith is a tenet of your hobby same as believing Sheffield Wednesday are perfect is a tenet of mine. But we all know The Owls are mid table and that means we lose a few and we all know that ultimately, religious faith is built on fairy tales. It isn't true. You know it isn't and I know it isn't.

But religion is a proxy for bigotry, and the more rational people point and laugh, the less disruptive the stupid aspects can be.

(I watched Mrs Brown D' Movie yesterday. Not good by any standard but one hilarious bit where the statue of Jesus was hanging off the cross on the wall outside a church. In the next scene, a priest is seen on a ladder nailing him back on..,,,)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:10 AM

"There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence."

I'm not sure what that means (not sure you do either). Presumably, God arranged the "catastrophe" and then thought: "Hang on! I've got the order all wrong here (Huh! So much for my infallibility!). I'll have to do a re-shuffle. Let's hope the God botherers don't notice!"

"So shimrod, Copernicus and Galileo were wrong after all, since they were rejected by peer review ?!"

Copernicus and Galileo were independently minded pioneers at a time when religious dogma dominated all thinking and muddied and obscured the human race's view of the universe. Fortunately, science has now kicked religion into the 'long grass' and its dogmas are only adhered to by a few weirdos like you and your fellow cultists.

" ... it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge."

I'm not denying God's existence; I'm asking you to covince me that he exists. After all, if you're so sure that he exists, it's not a 'big ask', is it?
The other question that you always dodge is: If God created the universe, where did he get his materials from? Did he conjure them out of nothing? I thought that, according to you, it was 'impossible' to get something from nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:59 PM

it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge.

An eternal God with no beginning doesn't come from anywhere. But the problem with your statement is your completely unjustified and unsupportable claim that your God is eternal with no beginning. You have no evidence for the existence of such a creature. Indeed, he breaks so many laws of nature that the possibility of his existence is vanishingly small. So I'm not asking you where your eternal God with no beginning comes from. I'm asking you where God comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars kink
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 06:38 PM

Well stu, at least some kind of argument.   Granted there is a general order. It would be expected that a catastrophe beginning in the ocean would cover the sea floor creatures first. It would also be expected that the more mobile would be overwhelmed last. There are however many fossils that have been moved up or down as needed to maintain the desired sequence. And of course, order or not, these fossils are preserved by the tons, but only because of rapid burial that slowed or prevented deterioration. Oh , and is there anywhere where the whole fossil index is complete ?.                           So shimrod, Copernicus and Galileo were wrong after all, since they were rejected by peer review ?!.   All the complex epicycles their contempories kept adding are just like the ever changing evolutionary story, I reckon.    and I must say again, that it is logically impossible to say where an eternal God with no beginning came from. You can deny his existence but you can not fall back on this illogical challenge.                                                          As for me shoving my beliefs down throats....! Give us a break. It was you evo atheists that just could not help yourselves from looking for a fight, that both initiated this debate, and who are shoving evolutionism and atheism down our throats.....if you insist on taking that line .

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:40 PM

You wanted to know the detail of my belief.
You did not like it when I refused.
You then say I am foisting my beliefs on you, and you say it is me who is an idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:23 PM

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.

How is this a demand?

It is a question, nothing more or less. If you chose not to answer, fair enough. People can draw their own conclusions.

The last point of your post. Not petulant. Again, asking a question. If you chose not to answer, fair enough. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:20 PM

And,

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

"So who is the comment Are you all daft, most of the bible is metaphor aimed at then seeing as Keith believes part of it, though he will not say which part,

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:16 PM

Dave,Here is you demanding to know my beliefs.

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.



And here is you being petulant about me refusing to lay bare my beliefs.

GUEST,Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:22 AM

I am confused now. You co not believe the bible is the literal truth, you do not believe it is history and you do not believe it is not lies. What is it then? Besides 'broadly in line with' can mean anything. What a cop out. But like the god theory really.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.


Proof please, Keith. I have never demanded anything nor been petulant. Either in upper or lower case. Why do you keep lying? Or if not lying, twisting peoples words. You really do have some some personality issues don't you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Stu
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 11:49 AM

Pete, this:

"and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !"

. . . follows on from a previous post containing this:

"and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old."

That me old mucker, is a statement that is simply wrong. I've engaged you over the years and quite comprehensively, but still you regurgitate dross like this.

Mind it was nice of God to sort all those fossils into a carefully stratified, logical order that allows us to construct a tree of life to disprove creationist mumbo-jumbo. Imagine if they were all mixed up, like they must have been in the swirling tempest of the flood? He must have made them settle sequentially on the seabed, from simple to complex. Now why the heck would he do that?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM

(Except from the atheists trying to convince believers that they are deluded)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 10:22 AM

None of that here PFR.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:49 AM

Nowt so much wrong with 'expressing'..

but evangelizing / proselytizing / indictrinating / brainwashing / etc..

let's just say these forms of 'expression' are somewhat problematic to say the least...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM

A day ago you and the pack were DEMANDING to be told in detail my beliefs.
You were SO PETULANT when I refused.

Now today you accuse me of foisting my beliefs on you!!

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:28 AM

Dave,
try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else.
for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats

So we can have views but must never express them?
You really are very intolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:14 AM

Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Yes, but not close in philosophy. Also, they were very acceptant of my choices and did not try to foist their beliefs of me or anyone else. And FWIW I have always had a very low tolerance of fools who believe that theirs is the only 'truth'.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM

I remember it well, Freddy. Having been a Grauniad reader for 40 years or more, I'm on the alert every April 1 for the latest jape, and the paper never lets us down. I remember one year when it was very subtle, the BMW badge in the car ad the wrong way round or something like that. The Clarkson one yesterday had Mrs Steve fooled, but don't tell her I told you!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:14 AM

Just for the record, pete, I have no "evolutionary beliefs" either! And that's because (for the umpty millionth time) science is NOT about belief!! Science is a system for examining the nature of reality through observation, the gathering of evidence and experiment. The evidence gathered so far supports an evolutionary model - it does not, in any conceivable way, support a load of fairy tales in an old book!

"oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it ..."

Of course I appeal to concensus - you idiot! An important aspect of modern science is peer review i.e. a scientist's work must be accepted as valid by his peers before it can be published - a form of concensus. And all of the religious waffle you set so much store by is also based on concensus among members of your silly holy cult.

Finally, as someone with a scientific background, I can think of no conceivable reason why I should not question the nature and origin of your God. You (spuriously) dismiss such questions as "childish" - but, remember, children sometimes ask the most pertinent questions!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:51 PM

btw It's a bit complicated in parts but if you weren't about in 1977 you'll find a good copy of the Guardian article if you google
... able to study the San Serriffe phenomenon in a comparative way and his diary for 1796, now at the Geographical Society at Kensington Gore, contains the first description of the extraordinary scouring and deposition pattern which continually shapes and reshapes the island group.
Worth a read.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:33 PM

April Fool? Really !!?
Would the Guardian play such a trick?

You'll be telling me next the island of San Seriffe sank before it reached Sri Lanka.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:32 PM

April fool!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 06:20 PM

Excuse me from butting in but as a little diversion ... here is a link to a Guardian article about a reformed Clarkson published about 24 hours ago Former Top Gear presenter says being sacked by the BBC was a 'wake-up call' as he joins host of celebrities backing climate change campaign  
Sorry, about 24 hours late spotting this.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:55 PM

It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom.

You have become a despicably intolerant person Dave.
Were there not people very close to you who were "holy men?"

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:38 PM

Find me one religion that hasn't lied for its god and I'll maybe begin to have some belief. Until then, it's all bullshit, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 05:21 PM

Dave, he wants me to stop saying "Jaysus", "by Christ" and "Christ on a bloody bike". Jesus wept, what a cheeky monkey! This delicate fellow, who uses the name of Charles Darwin in the most insulting and offensive contexts! You couldn't make it up.

So.

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?.

Correct.

I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ?

Presume no longer. Evolution is here. It happens. It cannot be contradicted. By any measure, it's true. The theory of evolution is a different matter. The theory attempts to explain the phenomenon of evolution. Theories in themselves are not the truth. In fact, there are plenty of gaps to be filled and tweaks to be made to the theory as our knowledge increases. Science is a wonderful endeavour that tries to get to the heart of things. You wouldn't understand that. Your God gave you a mighty brain that you don't use. You couldn't be more disrespectful to your God if you tried. See you in Hades.

ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence

Gibberish.

. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.

You ignore evidence and appear to understand nothing. And there's nothing I can tell you that would change that.

we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.

Go fetch him then. At least he says challenging things at times that I can get my teeth into, unlike your good self.
               
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Denied. If that's the worst swearing you've heard, then, bejaysus, you really are a poor, sheltered thing, aren't you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:23 PM

I still can't see quite how we got here

BLOODY AGAIN!!!

from Clarkson.

Still -- Play Your Games, dears.

Bedtime for Pussikatz'n'Lions...

Ho-hum

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:17 PM

is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ?

No, it genuinely isn't from me. It is because you deserve it. Besides, it's what you holy men want isn't it? Mockery, ridicule, martyrdom. Means you will be first in line with your season ticket at the pearly gates. You you should be thanking us.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 04:10 PM

if I am playing a game [ which I don't see it as ] , shimrod, I reckon I might be doing better than you, the scientist, who cannot cite any science to support what he claims is true !. oh, and that word " consensus " is because you keep appealing to it, and you don't get it, that that is not an argument. all it proves is that more people agree , than not. and is all the mockery and badmouthing an attempt to stop me replying to you ? ........ it will probably work !.

and I see stu has returned already from refusing to engage me to go off and do science, with a distinctly unscientific put down !

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:58 PM

Pete. There is no evidence for god apart from very circumstantial, hearsay and appeals to authority. And that authority is thousands of years old and cannot be trusted. You believe? Fine. No one has any problems with that. But for fucks sake stop pushing it down our throats as it is fact and stop trying to make sure that my grandchildren are told the same pack of lies that you were. You want people to stop using your name as a swearword? Then stop acting like an arse.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:43 PM

so steve, you have no evolutionary beliefs ?. I presume that what you mean is [ that you say ] it's true ? ok, lets have the evidence....and appeals to authority and numbers is not direct evidence, and if it were the theist can use it too !. if those laws of nature you listed support evolutionist teaching, then pray tell how ?. however, laws of nature like organisms producing after their own kind [ as per genesis ] are in line with creation which you say has not a scrap of evidence. and then there is the evidence for the catastrophic flood. there are millions of dead things preserved as fossils, and even soft tissue from creatures supposedly many millions of yrs old. then there are trees buried across multi strata. all these are much more in line with more recent, sudden burial from waterborne sediment, than the gradualism of evolutionism. now I do know that evolutionists have come round to the idea of some catastrophism, but is there evidence for much else ?.
we seem to have different ideas about what the expression " hostile witness " means. I know that snail is not on my side , and that is what makes his challenge to you all the valuable. it is the other side verifying that evolution cant be verified. so, steve, show me some evolution, if evolution is true !.                  
and I respectfully request you stop using the name as a swear word.., that is if you expect responses to you in future.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 01:57 PM

Dave, no-one thinks a war is "a good thing."

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:39 PM

What's to say?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:06 PM

That's the problem with the self righteous with nothing to be righteous about. They are so far up their own arse, insults get rather muffled. So when they do hear clearly, they don't understand how they got to such a reputation.

Normality is a gang eh? Being a normal well adjusted person with moderate objective takes on society is a conspiracy?

No wonder mental health services in Scotland are at breaking point. Just had a look at the CCG commissioning for Hertfordshire. That is 21% underfunded too.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:17 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me

I may be childish is some respects but I grew out of gangs when I was about 11. There are a number of people who post on here who do not believe that gay people should be treated as second class citizens or war should be glorified. If that is what you mean by gang, however, I am proud to be part of it.

And if you think I have been horrid, you have led a very sheltered life. As the song says, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:13 AM

What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

Well, apart from the phraseology of that being idiotic, what is stupid and pointless about being anti-war?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM

Dave,
I do believe that they will not be fooled into believing that any war is a good thing, no matter how well led. Nor will I.

And nor will I.
And nor will anyone else.
What a stupid, pointless point to not make Dave.

I ridiculed you because you are an idiot.

!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM

It's nice to have credibility... I'm happy with mine too.

Just think, you can be credible to normal people who matter and count, or you can be credible to bigots, idiots and little men.

Looks like some of us tossed the right coin...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:03 AM

They wont let you IN their gang.....no matter how horrid you are to Keith OR me .....not even if you ask them nicely.
"I think I'm a Musket too"

You're a Trade Unionist......that's worse than they think we are. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM

Yep - Like a child rather than a manipulative, conniving sociopath. Quite proud of that, thanks. Quite happy with my credibility as well thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:38 AM

Are you prepared to sacrifice what's left of your credibility for the bullies?