Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Essay talk:Atheists cannot understand the true God

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

You might want to fix your apostraphes. They're all coming up as weird symbols for me. And brace yourself, because there's a very good chance your poor arugments are about to be ripped to shreds. ThunderkatzHo! 11:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Another one for my nutter collection Nods.gif. SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:00, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

So....the basic argument here is "God is bigger than we are, so He can do ANYTHING HE WANTS to us, and we had better praise Him for it, or He'll do even WORSE."? Forgive me if I don't genuflect and convert on the spot. --Gulik 12:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Yah, I was trying to do a counter-argument, until I realised there wasn't an argument to counter in the first place. You know, I have some friends who are smart, engaging, respectful Christians and Muslims. I wish people like them--and many of them do exist--would come talk to us, instead of people like this who make Ken look like a freakin' genius...PFoster 12:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Let's throw up a delete thingie on it. It's SOOOooo bad that it could be considered parody, (and we could just move it to FUN), it reads like an atheist take on some hick's view of atheism than a BELIEVER try to get someone else to believe. If it IS a believer trying to get people to believe, well then EPIC PHAIL. CЯacke® 12:20, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
And baby makes three. Although a move to FUN might work, since it's actually pretty hilarious. --Kels 12:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Who is Ken? --Yerranos 12:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm coming to believe it's YOU...otherwise check this link out. CЯacke® 12:20, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
yeah - the site is down now, but you two will get along swimmingly.PFoster 12:23, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Time Cube anyone? Delete? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Nah, it's an essay...let it stand as a perfect representation of the lowest common denominator.PFoster 12:23, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I WILL delete it if someone doesn't fix the "?"'s for " ' "'s and put "?" where they DO belong. CЯacke® 12:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Smart Quotestm are sinful in their own right. --Kels 12:30, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I WILL delete it if this clown doesn't learn the difference between it's and its. PFoster 12:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's take the second point and think it through from the other side:

  1. God is the being over which nothing exists.
  2. Let's say there is no God (nothing above humans an animals), just humans and animals.
  3. Therefor nothing would be above humans,
  4. therefor all humans would be gods.

ergo: There is no God, so there are many Gods. this is called 'reductio ad absurdum', but thanks for trying. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Deletion[edit]

Why delete the template? It says deletion is being discussed on the talk page, which is exactly what's happening. --Kels 12:31, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

If we are going to delete, should we do it before or after this guy has spent a bunch of time fixing the formatting?PFoster 12:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I checked the talk page, but didn't really see a discussion about deletion except the thing about apostrophes, which to be honest, I didn't think was serious. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 12:42, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Upon reflection - This guy shows up on our snarky little blog wiki and drops in a huge block of rambling, insulting text as his first edit? Piss on this. We can be too accommodating sometimes. Delete, Lock and Block. PFoster 12:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
This seems like it would set a dangerous precedent. It has always been policy that users could write whatever the hell they wanted in Essay space without interference, and I think we should be very careful with changing that policy. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:23, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Susan, Cracker and I have all suggested delete, where do you fail to see discussion? --Kels 13:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I think we should move it to fun. It's fun. DickTurpis 13:26, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
It doesn't seem very fun. Do we have a Stupid namespace? --Kels 13:38, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm seeing it now, of course. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 13:28, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
My understanding of the essay space is that it is for non-standard ideas. it is said to be "A place for individual contributions which allow personal Point Of View or specialised subjects to be edited by specified editor(s) without interference. It say so here. Are you really going to banish it? Tolerance 14:53, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Wow. "Banish." That's a pretty strong word. My take (and I am NOBODY around here, so take it for what it's worth) is that this essay is a poorly-written, poorly-constructed, poorly-argued piece of crap, and there's little reason to keep it around. If we could get some interlocutors to present decent essays and arguments, well-thought-out, well-written attempts meant to engage discussion or at least get a few laughs, no one would think about "banishing" it. Yes, we want to provide a forum for the expression of ideas, even ideas we may not buy, but that doesn't mean a little quality control isn't justified. I mean, read this thing - it's atrocious...PFoster 14:59, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
And who gets to do that quality control? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:02, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
The community. Or didn't you notice the "discuss" part of the deletion notice? --Kels 15:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
THE MOB!!!!!PFoster 15:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I would have thought the side-by-side as proposed below would be a better approach than "it's badly written" "we don't like it so lets zap it." Still, I am less than nobody, and if people feel that deletion is better than argument then no doubt it will Go Away. Tolerance 15:05, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

The problem is, his/her entire argument is based on the assumption that God exists; his argument, then, is "if God does exist, than God can exist within the rules that God set up," which is not a good argument, and there's not really anything to refute. Also, this person created an account here with seemingly the sole purpose of posting the essay/rant, which seems to be taking advantage of our policy. I say we wait a week. If this person makes other contributions to the site, it can stay up. If they don't, this thing gets incinerated. ThunderkatzHo! 15:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
How? By consensus? By vote? Some other process? And by what criteria? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Tolerance, you want to side-by-side this abortion of an article, go right ahead. I can't even figure out what this n00b is arguing.PFoster 15:10, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Much to my surprise I find myself with AKL. If we don't like it we can try to argue with it or ignore it. To delete it would be a failure. (Having said that I'm arguing on principle - I haven't actually read it yet.)Bobbing up 15:13, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
I have to disagree too. Its better if we simply let essays represent their writter's views in their purest form, no matter how illogical they may be or how obvious full of hollow rethoric it is (e. g. the Pernicious liberal swarm thing). We've always said we welcome dissenting points of view, its only fitting that we also maintain those points of view as they're presented to us. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 15:14, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Now I've read it (or at least skimmed it) I still don’t think delete. Is it a parody?--Bobbing up 15:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

And somewhere, Heart of Gold is laughing at us. And he'd be right. --Kels 15:32, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Love this one:[edit]

"Remember, since you call yourself "scientific" you must approach all statements on this site with the attitude that any statement can true and should not be rejected unless scientific analysis proves beyond doubt that any statement is false." Flying spaghetti Monster, anyone? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:40, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I thought it was supposed to be a joke but after the third sentence it wasn't very funny so I gave up. CP is way better. Auld Nick 12:46, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

And another: "There is no stereotyping of atheists here. All atheists are bad, have a desire to make people negate their obligation to the laws of God, and work toward the moral destruction of a nation." It just gets better by the minute! SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:58, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

"False Christians indeed do teach that God loves everyone, but such a teaching is absent in the Bible." Wow. Hi Andy! Glad to see you've succeeded in taking all of the Liberal bias out of the Bible.*waves*PFoster 13:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I feel[edit]

I feel a side-by-side coming on. CЯacke® 13:02, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I tried. Don't bother - there's no argument to counter...PFoster 13:03, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
It could be done. One would have to quote a block of text and do a what this really means on it and then refute that. But you're right sounds like moer trouble than its worth. CЯacke® 13:08, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

To paraphrase #8: Do not argue that God does not exist until you acknowledge that he does. Brilliant. DickTurpis 13:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it looks like someone who is reaching out of their comfort zone into the unknown. At first I thought it was a language barrier...then I moved to an intellectual one, but now I kinda think it's both. CЯacke® 13:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

On reflection, I think a side-by-side would be an excellent riposte, on the basis described by CЯacke®. Spica the Hiver If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 17:06, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Vote Early, Vote Often[edit]

Delete[edit]

  • PFoster 15:06, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Kels Does not add anything to the wiki, no actual argument or logic involved, pointless. Is this wiki going to be just a dump for lunatic rants? 15:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Keep[edit]

That's why we didn't delete it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I see that perhaps I was a little late on this one, still I think it important we show our disdain for censorship. Besides, having read it and the users wiki I am not convinced the whole thing is not an elaborate and overdone parody — Unsigned, by: damo2353 / talk / contribs

Hence Poe's Law... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Wait[edit]

Move discussion/vote[edit]

  • This action would change a fundamental and long-standing policy on this website and is not something that should be debated here. Move to a more central location. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:16, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Agree. Essay should allow radically dissenting voices.--Bobbing up 15:19, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
  • You're supposed to put that above in the "keep" section. This is about moving it to the wikilawyering page or whatever (to which I agree). NightFlareSpeak, mortal 15:22, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it was suppose to be my rational for moving the debate. Perhaps I could have worded it better.--Bobbing up 15:27, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

*cough*[edit]

parody *cough* --Linus(plot evil tech)

When I press here, cough, please, young man. Oh, that's not what you meant? So sorry. ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 00:47, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

New Template[edit]

Maybe we could keep it (not that I'm exactly fond of it, my eyes try to commit suicide a few sentences in) if we added a template to the top of the page? Something that says "This is a controversial essay." Maybe even add that its "argument" is counter to RW's stated position. You could even restate that it does not represent the opinions of anyone but the author. I know there's a bit of controversy about this essay, and a controversy about the controversy, so perhaps something like this could please everyone? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:50, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

I think we need some kind of system to seperate sincere users from trolls -- anyone who isn't here just to cause disruption (and that includes the author of this "essay", I'm afraid) has the right to lay out their views in an essay. And if anyone disagrees I shall sting them. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Diane, I'm at RationalWiki again... 22:54, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
New Namespace: FunEssay </joke> SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:56, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Second Susan's comment. Not to create it, but the concept. Essay is fine with me. ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 00:45, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Wow, my sig is fucked up, maybe I should revert a few edits to it... I look like a clueless, font junky geek now! ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 00:48, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it's even fontier than TK's old signature. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:25, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Urgh, that was below the belt ;) Can I keep the crossed "h" thing, at least? ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 17:22, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Still think it looks like "Hymen" SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:23, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

The mob has spoken[edit]

It looks like the mob is in favor of keeping this. Can we remove the delete template? SHahB 15:04, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

so let it be written so let it be done. PFoster 15:15, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I think we also agreed to make and add a template that says basically "Some drive by editor spammed us with this, and although we decided not to delete it, there was much discussion about that on the talk page" (itals instead of link) ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 15:20, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Drive By Template[edit]

Brilliant - an excellent compromise, and an excellent example about how mobocracy can work. Well done, Mob. PFoster 15:47, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree in principle, however I take issue with "we don't really care about it at all". This essay almost caused HCM. SHahB 15:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I meant it along the lines of "we don't really care about the content." Should I change that? Also, now that we have "procedures" "in" "place" HCM shouldn't ever happen for something like this. ThunderkatzHo! 15:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I tweaked the template a bit, please check my work ;) Thanks for making it! ħψɱɐUser talk:Human 16:03, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Looks quite cool.--Bobbing up 16:46, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
Eggsellent! SusanG  ContribsTalk 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
The template is a good way of dealing with it. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 10:38, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

The ravings of a madman[edit]

I just wanted to chime in and say how much I love to read the ravings of a madman. I tried to do the thirty questions thing on Yerranos' wiki, but I just can't kept up with that kind of insanity. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 09:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I missed all the fun when this was originally posted but it seems like distilled essence of CP batshit - "God, is what I say it is, Christians and Atheists are what I define them as." Ken and Andy rolled into one ignorant illiterate mess. The only thing missing is the word "liberal". Of course, we must keep it until we run out of server space and if someone is really bored during the long winter evenings then a |x| refutation might be attempted. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 10:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Still not sure this isn't Poe's Law.--Bobbing up 15:53, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
@Genghis - taking the absolute value function of it? ħumanUser talk:Human 16:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
0. That was easy.  :) Quarupraline - You can't explain that! 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My take on this[edit]

Atheists cannot understand the true God 1. Wait, how is God good? Does this mean I can't judge a tyrant, simply because he is more powerful? Nice...

2. Because there's no law, we can't judge them as they're higher? This is a baseless claim. Just because there's no law, I can still say “that's just wrong,” having any reason for that, or none at all.

3. There seems to be a confusion of law and morality here. They are not identical, and if you think so, the tyrant example holds. Even if no law can stop a tyrant, they're wrong.

4. By this standard, anyone can be right, so long as they are sufficiently powerful. The tyrant is right because no one can stop him?

5. Wrong. You have not in any way dismantled counter arguments. If we take your logic why doesn't my saying “I'm just not fond of him” with no reason whatsoever to back it up besides pique, hold up? This morality is entirely arbitrary, on the whim of God...

6. Please, do explain more how my abusive tyrannical father does not have to love me...I also love being compared to a car made for destruction. I can indeed condemn Ford if they're wasting valuable resources, some other reason or again simple pique. I made you, I'll take you out. Thanks, father...

7. So God is our master, we are his slaves. He made us, so we're his. God commands us to obey the Commandments, but does not lead by example. In fact the opposite.

8. I have every right to argue over God, even if I'd recognize this aspect of Him. That would be even worse of course. I will argue about his existence at my pleasure...

9. Ah, but according to you, God is right to kill anyone he wishes, even everyone, young or old, for whatever reason or none, because he made us. If we take that example, every woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, since she started it, and has to see that through. By your logic this holds if God does not exist. It seems the sole difference of who makes what, not anything trivial like the right to control yourself. Besides, suppose that I do oppose abortion, yet at the same time don't believe in God, or at least not your version of it? Even if we believed that God made every person, is that person to have zero control of their own body, yet we apparently have free will? How can anyone go through every waking moment praying to an invisible entity or seeking instruction as to what they should do? To function at least temporarily we have to make decisions, even unconscious ones.

10. This does not help me want to love God in the least. In fact, it's pure argument from fear and force. If I obey because otherwise secret police will take me away, so what? Equally if I obey because otherwise God might make me suffer, both this life and the next...Yet according to you, it doesn't even matter. If God doesn't like me, or simply doesn't care to prevent my suffering, no amount of my prayers or obedience is enough. The Book of Job is right. It all comes down to “because I said so” and “or else.” Abusive parent indeed... 11. If God is not bound by logic or the physical laws he presumably set in motion, how can we say anything about him at all, including what you've claimed? Our minds cannot comprehend something entirely above and beyond these concepts. Therefore your contentions have no more weight than atheists' questions.

12. Wow. So yet again we hear God cannot be wrong, no matter what. By nature he is right. Why? Because might makes right. There is no power greater, so what he says goes. That is your definition for “good.” How appalling...

13. The point is that God, being our all-powerful creator in your contention, could prevent every problem imaginable. He could have human beings with free will live as they wish, attempting to steer them without directly intervening, or whatever. On the other hand according to you, he sets us free to choose-then punishes if we get it wrong! The writer of this essay would probably disagree, but some people in the world do not know that some behaviors are “sins” that God will punish us for, in this life or the next. Ones that are purely consensual, benign, or harm only themselves especially. Yet apparently we are set up so God can punish us after we fail. How nice...Why on Earth would anyone not be tempted into atheism, or at least misotheism (the hatred of God) if according to you doesn't love us all, will do whatever he pleases, etc. You've taken away what people look to God for, at least in most cases-a divine entity that loves and protects them. All that's left is a cold, intolerant tyrant who punishes without mercy if you break arbitrary rules, most of which you may not even be aware of and which seem to be changing eternally at His whim.

14. Ok, this is probably not a question you want, but why did God even put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden? We're set up to fail. If we get the test wrong, we're punished for the original sin of our ancestor forever. God obviously didn't want it to happen, so why didn't he simply restart this? Worship of a being this capricious is nightmarish.

More Facts (ha!) That's funny, considering the Bible teaches many things Christians no longer follow-or are they wrong about that too? Slavery, merciless slaughter of anyone God said (including babies), conversion through torture or threats of death, etc. were considered acceptable, indeed duties for centuries. If they are no longer, it's entirely arbitrary. God will give no reason according to you, such as “this causes less pain” just “because I said so.” For you to condemn any behavior, given that it is based simply on the subjective opinion of the most powerful entity in the universe, is simply laughable. Free thought is of course anathema to your God, so one wonders just why gives us that. For his amusement perhaps? It seems your God is a sadistic psychopath. No surprise there. Blame it all on “atheists” pretending to be Christians. At the same time, you would tell us that if God commanded such acts, you must obey. Don't say “but he wouldn't.” In the past he apparently has, and if it was His will, who are we to disagree? Any commandment of his can of course be repealed by God at his whim. Again, to say any behavior is wrong given your entirely arbitrary God is a joke.

Atheism is evil and bad Fine, but you're biased too in favor of your God belief. There is no one who does not hold some bias. You don't even want us to being using science for this, believe me...To quote from your book “thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.” Yes, you go by your own strawman version of atheism...It's quite funny that you should claim we hold to moral relativism (something many atheists would strongly disagree with) given that your supposed objective morality from God is based entirely on capricious whims of his, thus utterly subjective. That's the very definition of irony...

Why atheism? According to your version of God, we cannot be sure anyone goes to heaven. Yes, he might say that, but it's possible that's just a cruel game of his. What you've said would seem to make it a distinct possibility. Your argument amounts to Pascal's Wager. Of course a problem with that (among many) is deciding on which if any god is right. Yours is neither obvious nor appealing.

The origin of atheism This brings up yet more questions, related directly with the origin of sin. If God is all-powerful, and didn't want people to disobey him, why allow a being to defy him, and lead us astray? Yet again it seems there is no explanation besides divine boredom, capriciousness and sadism. I can't blame Satan for wanting this God to not exist, or wishing to mislead us so. Indeed if what you say is true, I'd hope there would be a way to beat God. Of course you'd except that kind of reply...

The goal of atheism Nothing more than a conspiracy theory based on your twisted theology.

Can atheists lead moral lives? Given the entirely capricious, subjective “morality” of your God, it is again laughable to condemn any behavior, for it could be commanded by Him tomorrow. More conspiracy theories do not help this.

Hey, my friend is an atheist I find it interesting you specifically say “love thy worthy neighbor as thyself.” I don't remember the “worthy” bit. This seems designed to get out of loving “unworthy” neighbors, such as we Diabolical Atheists in Service of Satan. By the way, just how do we know your God is not Satan, disguising himself to deceive us all? That would be in keeping with the “nature of his game” as the Rolling Stones put it, and fit this Prince of Lies. Maybe the Gnostics were right...

But atheists don't realize God exists Frequenting a name in conversation is proof that we believe in something? Look out! You've frequented the name of atheism and Satan all throughout the essay! Oh no! Also, you told us to use science. We don't do that by taking the Bible as fact without looking into it first, so please no more proof by citing this (wasted effort I know).

How do you know they hate God You have provided absolutely no reason to love God, and many for hating Him. We can't hate fictitious characters, or say that about people we loved. Wow...your ignorance of both fiction and human relations is truly breathtaking.

I do not appreciate your speaking against atheists Fear and trembling in the shadow of a fist is the relationship a person has with an abusive spouse or parent. Do not ask us to love such a being, simply to stave off the blows, when everyone knows they cannot possibly please them forever, as they take it out on them at their whim.

You don't understand atheists Sure, no stereotyping whatsoever...If we really believe that God does not exist (we do), then wouldn't it stand to reason we'd not want the belief shoved down our throats?

But atheists have the right to be atheists It is truly sad that you can only conceive of rights handed down by a master. Such rights, of course, would exist only at their whim...as they do with your God.

Atheism is about proof We're ignorant? Please don't make me laugh...As you said, it's about proof. Got any? Why of course not, that would be too easy. God wants faith. His followers who play the proof game only embarrass themselves and Him. So if he exists, your God apparently created this universe so we would not know he did so. Mind games, toying with us...Playing God. Of course the writer of this essay will never believe it, but I've never had this “deep down” understanding that God, angels, demons, let alone ghosts or anything else supernatural, exists. Even if there were such a thing, which God? It might be surprising for such an ignorant person, but if you asked a tribesman from New Guinea or the Amazon which God (or more likely Gods) they knew existed “deep down” their answer would not be yours. However, if your God were real, I can see the idea of atheists pretending God does not exist as we hate him. There is certainly no reason for love...

If God loves everyone, but someone suffers, he is either powerless, or non-existent You addressed this already, it didn't need rehashing. You've provided the thoroughly repulsive and unsatisfying third option: God does not love everybody. Thanks, now I'd have even less reason for believing in your God, assuming he exists which (thankfully, oh how thankfully), he does not. Your metaphor about the child you love fails, as in your view God arbitrarily takes spite toward a child, hating and punishing them for no reason. How are we to deal with such a being, especially one all-powerful? Now the writer ventures down to Calvinism. So must people will go to hell, there is no free will, God commands all the bad actions heathens make. The circular logic of “since most people in this world will be sent to hell BY GOD, God illustrates His deep hatred for them” is put forth. Well it's up to God who goes to hell, so screw Him. If God makes us do the sins which get us sent to hell, because he hates us in the first place, it's utterly pointless. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Even if you follow his Word, it might get you nothing except a trip to the furnace in the end. So why bother? Just so you might possibly avoid that? I'd rather burn for eternity than obey a petty tyrant of this sort. Basically, your God is Cthulhu. Do as I say so you can be eaten first, avoiding the even greater misery which follows. No thanks...I really hope this is a parody, but people exist who truly believe this. Poe's Law strikes again. Guess we'll never know. — Unsigned, by: 71.237.42.44 / talk / contribs