I had the misfortune of happening across this abject nonsense this morrow. Since comment moderation is on, and there is every chance the brown-nose will opt for the coward's way out and neglect to approve, my reply is here. Enter Federer.
Your onanistic whining amuses me. Craig, and the facts he espouses, must have really struck a nerve in that puny, mind-AIDS infected brain of yours. Don't worry, son. We know you have an agenda to push and so can't let evidence or logic get in the way of your irrational biases and quixotic delusions. Might I suggest you take off the blinders, and actually perform some genuine valid research? In the meantime, whilst you and your fellow sub-sapient imbeciles congratulate each other as you circle jerk and primitively beat your chests, us intellectuals will continue to laugh at you as you embarrass yourselves trying to talk about subjects you can't even comprehend. Now, I could continue to lambast you and your fellow ignorance steeped sheeple, or I could actually point out the many, many flaws in what is essentially a platform for you to vent your frustration at having your wild fantasies falsified.
"Craig, like all religionists, is suffering from delusion, the intellectual sharp practice that he indulges should be challenged."
Ah, the irony of a deluded, grade a whackamole projecting his failings onto his intellectual superiors. Apparently, in your infinite wisdom, your forgot that bare assertions and begging the question do not a valid argument make. Yet, you would have us believe it is Craig who is in need of being challenged? No, you couldn't win a debate against a mentally handicapped child and would, presumably, have a hard time punching your way out of a giant paper bag.
"One of the things that you will find, if you do choose to suffer so, and actually read what Craig has to say in his response to the response to his original piece of personal puffery, that Craig has the presumption to lecture Professor Krauss on cosmology and physics!"
Ah, and I assume you are knowledgeable on such subjects? Oh wait, you point your lack of experience in such fields, yet claim to be able to lecture Craig? Oh, the hilarity of it all. Of course, you, being the abject moron that you are fail to provide a single example of Craig lecturing Krauss on a point related to cosmology or physics that is false. Indeed, it can simply be assumed that Krauss has sunk to the lows of his fellow dishonest charlatan, Victor Stenger, the failed philosopher, and resorted to deliberately misrepresenting the facts of his profession, in the vain hope that ignorant dum-dums such as yourself will buy it. Ironically enough, you think that Krauss is able to lecture Craig on the existence of Jesus, a fact that no historian disputes. Consistency is evidently not your forte.
"Krauss made that very clear when he suggested that Dr. Craig had three legs, only that one leg simply disappeared when anyone was looking at him. And, of course, this theory could not be disconfirmed even by Dr. Craig, since no one is bound to take his word for it, and by definition, no one else can either confirm or disconfirm it."
Ah, appealing to the random dribblings of a retard. Of course, contra backwards thinking Neanderthals such as yourself, such a hypothesis can actually be confirmed, or falsified. Since it only disappears when people observe it, all that would be required would be for everyone to avert their eyes and then to feel with their hands where such a disappearing leg would be. Nonetheless, I do have some questions, and, yes, I know hard questions give incompetent boobs such as yourself headaches, but try to bear with me. Can these following hypotheses be confirmed or falsified?
1. The external world is an illusion, you alone exist as a brain in a vat.
2. The external world is really a computer generated dream world, vis a vis The Matrix.
3. The universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, including false memories.
No doubt, these are the kinds of examples the bumbling fool Krauss meant to give, but, being the unskilled ignoramus that he is, he fell spectacularly short of the mark and will no doubt have to continuously update his analogy as the flaws in it are exposed. Moreover, such analogies pose far more of a problem for those of your primitive world-view than it does for real thinkers such as myself. Given that the inability to disprove the statement: the external world is an illusion, it is also the case that we cannot prove the statement: the external world is real, either. Indeed, I would be interested to see the how you would go about proving the following common-sense rational beliefs solely using empirical evidence:
1. Our senses provide us with accurate information.
2. Our brains are capable of processing information accurately.
Indeed, I wonder how you would even go about empirically confirming the statement: naturalism is true, or rather, everything that exists can be empirically validated? You dismiss hypotheses that cannot be affirmed by empirical evidence, yet your principal assumption, the belief that the only way to verify something is with empirical evidence, cannot itself either be confirmed nor dis-confirmed. Whoops, I've gone and shattered your illusory fantasy bubble. Hopefully, you won't wet yourself as you curl up in the foetal position on your race-car bed. Urea is an irritant, didn't you know? If you find these simple tasks too challenging, then how about this: try to measure your mass with a ruler. Something tells me I'll be waiting for a long time.
"This is a problem that Craig never faces. He spoke about five different pieces of “evidence” that, to his mind, confirmed the existence of God, but not one of them, as expressed, could have been falsified, and therefore cannot function as evidence."
Au contraire. Craig DOES address the nature of evidence, something you conveniently neglected to mention, but then again, it would have ruined your "argument."
Of course, all the arguments Craig makes are easily verifiable. Although, they are unfalsifiable since the facts are on Craig's side, and not on yours. So, maybe that's what you really meant?
"This example of Christian stridency and ill-mannered overstatement is typical of the religious when their pieties are questioned... Whether a professional historian or not, G. A. Wells... Burton Mack, a well-known New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity...It is, in fact, not nonsense to claim that historians have doubted the historical existence of Jesus."
And thus the true extant of your monumental and profound ignorance is laid bare at last. The hilarity of someone who claims intellectual superiority making such an obviously false statement truly brings tears of laughter to the eye. It is no coincidence that I am myself a history student, and have been read up on such issues for a very long time. Unfortunately, for someone as dishonest as yourself, GA Wells is not a historian, professional or otherwise, and, also unfortunately for pathological liars such as yourself, Burton Mack does not maintain there is any doubt on the existence of Jesus. Mack holds to a rather counter-consensus view that Jesus was a cynic sage. But, for your bare-faced lie that there is doubt regarding the existence of Jesus, allow me to elaborate on how actual scholars and historians view such a position:
"There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavour to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen." - George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) px
"An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare." - Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p256
"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community." - Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction
"A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." - Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) p168
"Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio." - Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p8, 23–24
"A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the authors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese." - N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, eds., The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p48
"In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime." - Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p23
"The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given." - Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p32
"To describe Jesus' non-existence as 'not widely supported' is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method." - John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) p22-23
"The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case." - Charles E. Charleston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p3
"I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this." - Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007
"Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." - Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008
"... only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation." - Paul L. Maier (Western Michigan University), “Did Jesus Really Exist?”, 4truth.net, 2007, http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952895 (Accessed June 10th 2011)
Don't worry, we know. You have an irrational hatred towards intellectuals such a Craig, and an irrational bent against Theism, especially Christianity. You can't let simple facts like the existence of a historical person named Jesus slide, no matter how simple and uncontroversial they are, lest it allows the dreaded God hypothesis to get a foot into the door. No doubt, you would assert that the sky were red if the Bible made an important doctrine out of the fact that it were blue. Now, whilst this alone destroys what any credibility you may have once had, I shall continue in exposing the rest of your ignorance.
"He always referred to New Testament scholars as historians. This is simply untrue, for the most part. New Testament scholars have a religious agenda. They are not historians trying to establish, on the evidence available, wie es eigentlich gewesen ist — how things actually happened. The work of New Testament scholars is very often not impartial history, but religious affirmation."
Фигня. Your ignorance cries out like an abattoir full of retarded children. Fear not, for your screams make up the overture to my symphony, as the culling of your ignorance is at hand. Did you not get the memo? Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, thus we can dismiss the obvious bare assertion fallacy out of hand. Yet the true irony lies in your apparent hypocrisy. You claim New Testament scholars are biased, conservative believers... yet cite a New Testament scholar to make a case that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. In fact, I am not even sure someone as dull-witted as yourself can fully comprehend every facet of your abject failure here, for not only do you engage in slandering New Testament scholars whilst on the other hand using an NT scholar to bolster your failed hypothesis, you manage to contradict your own hypothesis. If we can trust Mack, then we thus have an exception to the rule, meaning we can dismiss your obviously false blanket statement, if we cannot trust Mack, then you were simply being wilfully dishonest, and can dismiss your hypothesis that Jesus never existed... as well as pretty much everything you say. Although you and I both know your use of Mack is dishonest... well, unless you are simply a moron. Either way, it amusing to point out the repeated, multiple intellectual shortcomings of misguided and misinformed misotheists such as yourself. Still, I would like to see evidence that this claim is true, remember that you did assert that hypotheses that cannot be confirmed or falsified are meaningless. Oh snap, playing your own ignorance against you. Those darn evil theists, eh? Ha, ha, ha, рожё тебя, товарищ!
"But then they would, wouldn’t they? Notice, though, that he is talking now about scholars, not about historians. His use of the word ‘historian’ was for the sake of the debate, but it misrepresents his position entirely and deliberately...Craig knows that most historians do not consider the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus sound."
Oh dear, it seems as if you were not content with simply shooting yourself in the foot before jamming it into your mouth, you somehow feel the need to do the same with your other. In fact, judging by the rate at which this occurs, you must have at least 20 feet. You might also want to invest in a see-through abdomen, that way you can see with your head still stuffed up your rectum. I am wondering, which historians that have spent their lives and careers studying New Testament and early Church History you think believe the evidence for the resurrection to be unsound? No need to answer, I can already guess it will be replete only with persons who agree with you. Nice to see confirmation bias at work first-hand. I have heard of such a phenomenon before, but, given the only people to frequent my company are honest intellectuals such as myself, I have yet to actually witness someone suffering from said malady.
"Dr. Krauss used Hume’s famous argument against miracles to raise questions about the historicity of the resurrection... Craig’s response is, sadly, predictable. Instead of arguing the point, he refers to an authority... Sadly for Craig’s reputation as an honest man, he does not bother to mention that since Earman wrote his book, a defence of Hume’s argument had been published... while I have read only reviews of either book... it seems to me likely that Hume’s argument still stands."
There is always something deliciously ironic about morons who assert the use of fallacies yet proceeds to use them themselves. On the one hand you bemoan Craig's appeal to agnostic Earman... yet proceed to rely on authorities yourself. GA Wells (a teacher of German) and Burton Mack (a New Testament scholar of ill academic repute). The true irony is, GA Wells has since recanted his position that Jesus never existed, but then again you are a stranger to industrious research, being the incompetent buffoon that you are. Or you knew this and were simply telling fairy tales. Playing fast and loose with the truth is something common to imbeciles such as yourself. Still, despite this you feel content to rely on Hume as an authority despite not having read the most up-to-date scholarly material on the subject. Your failure does not end there, for you admit to not having read up on the issue yourself, yet, as per your modus operandi, you proceed to make bold assertions without any supporting evidence at all. According to you, Hume's argument "likely still stands." Says the intellectual who makes patently false claims such as: "It is, in fact, not nonsense to claim that historians have doubted the historical existence of Jesus." No, it seems to be that the more likely explanation is you have no clue on the subject whatsoever, and are talking from ignorance, the sine qua non of your entire world-view.
"...it is well to recall Burton Mack’s point about circularity here. I should also like to recommend Hector Avalos’ discussion of Craig’s argument..."
Ah, and here we go again, relying on authorities after you already reprimanded Craig for such. Yet, if the repeat of this inconsistency is not enough, you feel the need to invoke the name of pathological liar Hector Avalos. Of course, you being the dishonest man that you are neglect to mention that responses to Avalos' tripe have already been written and published. Consistency. It is only a virtue when you're not a complete and total screw up.
"That’s why Craig loads his arguments with all sorts of circumstantial detail from quantum physics and cosmology that very few of his readers will even begin to understand. It is sounding learned that counts..."
In other words, you are simply a moron who understands nothing related to the fields of cosmology or physics. Actually, the concepts that Craig mentions are easily understandable. That is why liars such as Krauss feel the need to blatantly misrepresent them so, otherwise nobody would take their positions seriously. Of course, such dishonesty is not hard to see through to the astutely minded, which makes it all the more hilarious when simple-minded cretins such as yourself get bought in by such Фигня.
"I am not going to address here the issues of scientific cosmology that Craig addresses. I know that I do not know enough to get the answers straight, but I am reasonably certain that Craig does not know enough either."
Ah, the good old, I don't know, but I know that you're wrong, technique. Sorry, but your feigned self-deprecation only fools the ignorant and dull-witted. That probably goes a long way in explaining why your believe such tripe yourself. Of course, to anyone reasonably acquainted with cosmology, the bold assertions of defenders of the multi-verse hypothesis are simply that, bold assertions. It is well recognised by other scientists that the multi-verse is not even verifiable, or is ever likely to be. For example, I refer you to scientist Roger Penrose, who worked with none other than Steven Hawking, and yet he is adamant that M-theory (and related models) do not even qualify as scientific theories. There is this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4
There is more, also:
"The general multiverse explanation is simply naive deism dressed up in scientific language. Both appear to be an infinite unknown, invisible and unknowable system. Both require an infinite amount of information to be discarded just to explain the (finite) universe we observe." - Paul Davies, from Bernard Carr, ed., Universe or Multiverse?, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p495 See also: chapter 26 by Robbin Collins
"Let us recognise these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability - and to my mind greater economy and elegance - would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so." - John Polkinghorne, One World, (London, SPCK, 1986), p80
"It has been a not uncommon view among confident theoreticians that we may be "almost there", and that a "theory of everything" may not lie far beyond the subsequent developments of the late twentieth century. Often such comments had tended to be made with an eye on whatever had been the status of the "string theory" that had been current at the time. It is harder to maintain such a viewpoint now that string theory has been transmogrified to something (M- or F-theory) whose nature is admitted to being fundamentally unknown at present... From my own perspective, we are much farther from a "final theory" even than this... Various remarkable mathematical developments have indeed come out of string-theoretic (and related) ideas. However, I remain profoundly unconvinced that they are very much other than just striking pieces of mathematics albeit with some input from some deep physical ideas. For theories whose space-time dimensionality exceeds what we directly observe (namely 1+3), I see no reason to believe that, in themselves, they carry us much farther on the direction of physical understanding." - Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, (London, Jonathan Cape, 2004), p1010 See also: Roger Penrose, Cycles of Time, (Oxford, Bodley Head, 2010)
"It is said that an argument is what convinced reasonable men and proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - A. Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p176
"This type of quantum universe has not always existed; it comes into being just as the classical cosmologies could, but it does not start at a Big Bang where physical quantities are infinite." - John D. Barrow, Theories of Everything (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) p68
Yet you proceed to dazzle us with your, or sorry, I meant to say Hawking's scientific knowledge (there you go relying on authorities again) when you claim: "The multiverse is an inference from the known facts of quantum physics."
Au contraire, there is absolutely no observational support for a multiverse whatsoever. Yet, and I hate to bring up your past ignorance to beat up on you further, you criticised Craig for not mentioning there was a more recent defence of Hume... all the whilst neglecting to mention that have been several critique's of Hawking's sloppy pseudo-science in his book "The Grand Design." including but not limited to Penrose's review and the book 'Stephen Hawking and God: Whose Design Is It Anyway?' by Mathematician John Lennox. I would say you are making this much too easy for me, but then it is not exactly difficult beating a zero in the first place anyway.
"Now, I’m not certain that I understand all this, but I suspect that Craig does not understand it either."
Here we go again, projecting your ignorance onto your intellectual superiors. Craig has spent many years studying in the relevant theories and concepts related to this subject, and cites all the relevant sources in his printed works. Then again, that is a fact that a liar and fraud such as yourself cannot allow to come to light lest your falsities become too recognisably transparent.
"But this says nothing at all, unless Craig can understand the idea of an actual infinity, and this he apparently still cannot do. Dr. Krauss mentioned several times that physics works quite nicely with actual infinities, and Craig simply dismissed it, just as he dismissed the idea of the instability of nothingness."
Once again, your ignorance of matters far beyond your comprehension does not make a valid argument. For one thing, Craig is well aware of what an actual infinity is, whereas Krauss, the deceitful idiot that he is, knows full well that the "infinities" employed in physics are not actual infinities, in fact they are not even potential infinities but rather indefinitely large numbers. That you are apparently too stupid to notice speaks volumes about your methodology, or rather lack thereof.
"This, despite the fact that the Bible does issue such commands, and imagines that they come from God, and that Craig had the temerity not so long ago to judge that, since God had commanded the Israelites to kill the people of Canaan, and sometimes to permit the men to keep the women and girls — who had not had sex — to be kept alive for their own use as sex slaves, these commands were good!"
The fact that there is no such thing in the Bible at all tells me enough about your Biblical literacy. Then again, being the imbecile that you are, who likely has never read the Bible either, probably has only read what others claim the Bible says, and simply taken their word for it, on faith (after all, that is how those amongst your world-view operate.) For one thing, there is no evidence, either in the Biblical text, or in Ancient Near Eastern history that there were any cases of Israelites taking sex slaves. That you are too much of vapid, supercilious, piss-poor excuse of researcher to know that said girls were actually taken amongst the Israelite populace to provide them shelter, given that they posed no threat to the Israelites, is all the more apparent. Oh, but you are suffering from the delusion that the "evil" Israelites committed genocide against the poor, "innocent" Canaanites. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, those "innocent" Canaanites were actually vicious warrior tribes who terrorised the local region, so much so that they even caused the Egyptians, et al. trouble, and did other nice things like sacrificing their children to idols, and all that. Furthermore, anyone even remotely familiar with basic Ancient Near Eastern history would also know that such tribes trained their male children to become vicious warriors like their fathers from an early age, and that the command to kill the "boys" only applied to such. There is more evidence that crushes your remarkably poor "argument" but I think you have suffered enough humiliation for one evening. Of course, you still claim they are "innocent" regardless of these facts that have been known for decades, if not longer. Although the more plausible explanation is that you simply did not know, and are thus guilty once more of ignorance.
"This man has no conscience whatsoever. As long as it is grist for his apologetic mill, he will put it to use. This is intellectual irresponsibility, not to say the most stunningly immoral anti-intellectualism ever stated with such breezy and unconcerned confidence. The man is a hollow man, hollowed out by religion. He deserves the contumely of all who are devoted to the truth."
Coming from someone like you, this statement is absolutely meaningless, and actually a mark in Craig's favour. He has clearly upset you and your fellow pseudo-intellectual know-nothings, who would rather remain intoxicated in your myths than accept the facts as they are. You are simply a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic moron who spouts nothing but intolerance and bigotry-laden arguments full of non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. A brain-dead, vapid, condescending, piss-poor excuse of a debater who couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag. An arrogant, self-absorbed blow-hard who takes himself far too seriously and a morally retarded intellectual cripple whose only goal is to take whatever he can and make it an argument against Christianity, logic and the laws of physics be damned. Your arguments are so terrible and illogical it strains credulity to imagine that somewhere, someone is deluded enough to think they are arguments at all, let alone reasonable ones. Of course I say "argument" but really I should say "has a bash at" as reading your blog was rather like what it would be like to listen to Peter Andre reading Pride and Prejudice for a book tape recording.
And so, your ignorance is now laid bare, even now in ghastly degradation for all to see. Your laughably absurd attempts to vilify Craig in a fruitless endeavour to save your fallen hero, Krauss, is nothing more than intellectual suicide. Not that I expect you to recognise such mistakes, even after having them pointed out to you. Blind ignorance in the face of the evidence is the stock-in-trade of dyed-in-the-wool faith heads such as yourself. In fact, I sincerely doubt you even possess the capability to process this information in a way that your mind can handle without suffering a mental breakdown at having your fairy tale beliefs refuted. No matter, I can sit content in knowing that I have done my best to combat your ignorance. До свидания!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment