• Bigfoot - Does it Exist?
    225 replies, posted
Well, in one of the episodes of History Channel's MonsterQuest series they actually set a trap and got blood on it which was identified as "Human-like" DNA but not quite, although we're talking about the same channel that airs "Ancient Aliens" so... yeah...
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;35318333]History Channel[/QUOTE] Not the best source.
[QUOTE=David29;35318328]"Regarding the fixed stars, the Sun appears from Earth to revolve once a year along the ecliptic through the zodiac, and so Greek [b]astronomers[/b] considered it to be one of the seven planets" "An astronomer is a [b]scientist[/b] who studies celestial bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies." Sorry?[/QUOTE] Wow, you are incredibly dense. Do you seriously, SERIOUSLY, expect that ancient astronomers are the same, and use the same methods, as modern astronomer? Just give it up. You're arguing semantics at this point, a good show that you don't have a clue and are just trying to drag out your broken argument. Greeks did not use the scientific method, end of story.
[QUOTE=David29;35318328]"Regarding the fixed stars, the Sun appears from Earth to revolve once a year along the ecliptic through the zodiac, and so Greek [b]astronomers[/b] considered it to be one of the seven planets" "An astronomer is a [b]scientist[/b] who studies celestial bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies." Sorry?[/QUOTE] They weren't astronomers. They were astrologers. (The latter who are still around today and still full of shit.)
This is true, ancient "astronomers" were mostly equivalent to astrologers of today.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35316735]Please explain to me why no bigfoot fossils, bones, fur, hair, shit, corpses, etc have been found. Secondly, explain why no records of it exist before the man who faked its footprints came about. Thirdly, explain how such a creature would survive in such conditions which are far from ideal.[/QUOTE] Just from reading this thread I've gained some doubt about Bigfoot. I'm not completely dismissing it, though.
[QUOTE=David29;35317780]science is not always correct.[/QUOTE] This is true. Science always allows itself to be challenged to find the right answer. If something we believe is a fact is proved wrong, then science accepts this as the new fact, until that fact can be proved wrong. If you can prove science wrong, the science will simply correct itself. Science always seeks to have the correct answer, which is why it never states that something we can't know for sure is certain (although it can still state that it is very unlikely). However regarding science, do you know the relation between hypothesis, theory, and fact? A fact is undeniable evidence, something that can not be proved wrong. A theory is an idea that is yet to be proved, but the idea is supported by facts. A hypothesis is an idea that has not been proved, and that is not supported by facts. For an example, humans have skeletons is a fact, evolution is a theory, pink invisible mute unicorns roaming the sky is a hypothesis. Bigfoot is a hypothesis. There is no real facts that support the idea that big foot exists, only claims by random people that he does.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35318903]Just from reading this thread I've gained some doubt about Bigfoot. I'm not completely dismissing it, though.[/QUOTE] It is good to question the bigfoot myth, and to draw up rational and logical conclusions of it. There are a few pieces of scant evidence at best, consisting primarily of eyewitness accounts, a few shoddy photographs and videos or some other trinkets and bits. The weight of evidence against such a creature is massive though in comparison with the slim shreds of mostly vague waffle trying to prove it exists.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35316535]Again, witnesses are evidence. When someone gets killed and several witnesses come forward giving the same story as to what happened, I suppose that's just bullshit, right? You believe science is the only way something can be true, which is stupid. Just because it isn't proven, that doesn't mean it can't be true.[/QUOTE] I think you missed my entire point, great job. Eye witnesses are evidence, yes, but they are the most unreliable and most biased forms of evidence available. Court cases never rule in favor or against something solely based on eyewitness evidence. They are even described by the court as "notoriously unreliable" and as stated by the Innocence Project (dna evidence), "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing." If someone came up to a judge and said they knew who the murder was and proceeded to show them a shacky, low quality video of a silhouette of a man far away where you could make out a red hat or something and the video's authenticity couldn't be proven then the judge probably wouldn't convict the man to death just because he might also have a red hat at home. Again, just because there's a lot of belief towards a certain something without any real evidence to support it doesn't make that thing true or add any sort of real truth or reliability to the matter. "Just because it isn't proven, that doesn't mean it can't be true." Who said anything about can't? I just said that there's no evidence therefor it isn't true, not that it can't be true.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35318841]They weren't astronomers. They were astrologers. (The latter who are still around today and still full of shit.)[/QUOTE] "an astrologer draws a horoscope for the time of an event, such as a person's birth, and interprets celestial points and their placements at the time of the event to better understand someone, determine the auspiciousness of an undertaking's beginning, etc." Yup. That's exactly what they were. Observing the movement of the Sun in relation to the Earth is exactly what astrology is. [QUOTE=Simski;35318930]However regarding science, do you know the relation between hypothesis, theory, and fact? A fact is undeniable evidence, something that can not be proved wrong. A theory is an idea that is yet to be proved, but the idea is supported by facts. A hypothesis is an idea that has not been proved, and that is not supported by facts. For an example, humans have skeletons is a fact, evolution is a theory, pink invisible mute unicorns roaming the sky is a hypothesis. [/QUOTE] I haven't stated anywhere that Bigfoot is fact. My original point is that science can't be used to completely rule out the unexplained, since our understanding of things is constantly changing.
[QUOTE=David29;35319384]"an astrologer draws a horoscope for the time of an event, such as a person's birth, and interprets celestial points and their placements at the time of the event to better understand someone, determine the auspiciousness of an undertaking's beginning, etc."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Astrology and astronomy were archaically one and the same discipline (Latin: astrologia), and were only gradually recognized as separate in Western 17th century philosophy (the "Age of Reason"). Since the 18th century they have come to be regarded as completely separate disciplines. Astronomy, the study of objects and phenomena originating beyond the Earth's atmosphere, is a science and is a widely-studied academic discipline. Astrology, which uses the apparent positions of celestial objects as the basis for psychology, prediction of future events, and other esoteric knowledge, is not a science and is typically defined as a form of divination.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy[/url]
[QUOTE=David29;35319384]"an astrologer draws a horoscope for the time of an event, such as a person's birth, and interprets celestial points and their placements at the time of the event to better understand someone, determine the auspiciousness of an undertaking's beginning, etc." Yup. That's exactly what they were. Observing the movement of the Sun in relation to the Earth is exactly what astrology is.[/QUOTE] You are fucking stupid. Jesus christ give it up. That's modern and the very specific definition of astrology. Astrology, in general, uses movements of celestial objects and ties them with supernatural meanings and events. The Greeks did this. The movement of celestial bodies was related with their mythology and their gods, and like all ancient cultures, celestial movement shad supernatural meanings. That's the basis for the astrology market today, but we've simplified it down to applying the movement of the sun along the ecliptic through zodiac constellations and their supernatural meanings. It is exactly observing the motions of the sun in elation to Earth and other celestial bodies. I swear to god it's like you don't even know what this shit is so you look it up and then act all smart and smug because the first sentence on wikipedia validates the little you knew beforehand.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;35319461][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy[/url][/QUOTE] Indeed, but: At this time astrology and astronomy were not distinguished as separate disciplines; the act of astronomical observation was often done by someone who had astrological motives for doing so. [b]Indeed, astrologers' professional responsibility and desire for predictive knowledge for a large part spurred the advancement of astronomy, and the Babylonians developed a very precise ability to mathematically predict the location of celestial points and phenomena based upon their observable cycles.[/b]" [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35319481']You are fucking stupid. Jesus christ give it up. That's modern and the very specific definition of astrology. Astrology, in general, uses movements of celestial objects and ties them with supernatural meanings and events. The Greeks did this. The movement of celestial bodies was related with their mythology and their gods, and like all ancient cultures, celestial movement shad supernatural meanings. That's the basis for the astrology market today, but we've simplified it down to applying the movement of the sun along the ecliptic through zodiac constellations and their supernatural meanings. It is exactly observing the motions of the sun in elation to Earth and other celestial bodies. I swear to god it's like you don't even know what this shit is so you look it up and then act all smart and smug because the first sentence on wikipedia validates the little you knew beforehand.[/QUOTE] No, it's called research and backing up your point. Something you can't do. I find it laughable that a person is attacking the fact that I am providing quotes that support what I am saying.
[QUOTE=David29;35319384]"an astrologer draws a horoscope for the time of an event, such as a person's birth, and interprets celestial points and their placements at the time of the event to better understand someone, determine the auspiciousness of an undertaking's beginning, etc." Yup. That's exactly what they were. Observing the movement of the Sun in relation to the Earth is exactly what astrology is.[/QUOTE] That is effectively what they did. Up until the late middle ages, astronomy and astrology had not yet separated into different fields of study. They more or less looked at the sky and drew up conclusions based on what they saw and tried to apply this to real life situations. Looking at the suns movement in relation to the Earth does actually happen in Astrology. As an example of the logic people used before the Scientific method was introduced, let us look at the example of the 4 elements. Flames rise upwards, water flows towards the sea, earth is pulled down to earth by gravity, etc. Conclusion? Fire is trying to get towards the sun, being that it is the source of fire from legends of old. Water is trying to reach the sea, the natural resting place of water. Earth is trying to return to the rocks and soil from whence it came. That is the logic the ancients used.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319534]That is effectively what they did. Up until the late middle ages, astronomy and astrology had not yet separated into different fields of study. They more or less looked at the sky and drew up conclusions based on what they saw and tried to apply this to real life situations. Looking at the suns movement in relation to the Earth does actually happen in Astrology. As an example of the logic people used before the Scientific method was introduced, let us look at the example of the 4 elements. Flames rise upwards, water flows towards the sea, earth is pulled down to earth by gravity, etc. Conclusion? Fire is trying to get towards the sun, being that it is the source of fire from legends of old. Water is trying to reach the sea, the natural resting place of water. Earth is trying to return to the rocks and soil from whence it came. That is the logic the ancients used.[/QUOTE] Ignoring the fact that I have already shown that astrologers/astronomers of old actually used mathematics, your arguments only reinforces my original point. Theories and observations about the world are made (e.g. Sun orbiting the Earth), only to be ammended/abandoned as our understanding and abilities increase.
[QUOTE=David29;35319677]Ignoring the fact that I have already shown that astrologers/astronomers of old actually used mathematics, your arguments only reinforces my original point. Theories and observations about the world are made (e.g. Sun orbiting the Earth), only to be ammended/abandoned as our understanding and abilities increase.[/QUOTE] No you blasted fool. The difference was the Greeks DID NOT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. WE DO. WE USE IT TODAY ALL THE TIME. The logic Greeks would have used would probably support Bigfoot existing, but the Scientific Method used today would prove the opposite.
[QUOTE=David29;35319495] No, it's called research and backing up your point. Something you can't do. I find it laughable that a person is attacking the fact that I am providing quotes that support what I am saying.[/QUOTE] Fine, here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy[/url] Read it. The first sentences of the articles refute you point and show mine to be true. Don't try to hard. You aren't backing up your points, you're pulling specific modern definitions and stretching those to be used to try and make it seem that: Ancient people used astronomy, not astrology Therefore ancient people used observation Therefore observation is part of the scientific method Therefore the scientific method was used by ancient people Therefore ancient people's grasp of science was equal to ours now Therefore science changes and is unreliable Therefore science is not always applicable Therefore science does not need to be applied to explaining Bigfoot Therefore we can't assume Bigfoot is not real When this is retardedly stretching everything. If you actually did any "research" then you would see that what Sob, me, and in part Lilyo is saying is true. Instead, your "research" is just reading a quote that sounds about right and assuming that's the full story. It's not, and your quote here: [quote]"an astrologer draws a horoscope for the time of an event, such as a person's birth, and interprets celestial points and their placements at the time of the event to better understand someone, determine the auspiciousness of an undertaking's beginning, etc." Yup. That's exactly what they were. Observing the movement of the Sun in relation to the Earth is exactly what astrology is.[/quote] Absolutely proves it. Even using a modern definition of astrology, you can't even read enough to know that your sarcastic response about astrology having anything to do with the observance of the sun is actually completely right unsarcastically- modern astrology, and ancient, has everything to do with the motion of the sun along the ecliptic, passing along the zodiac constellations. You aren't backing up your claims, you're trying to refute both common knowledge and facts with extremely specific definitions. That isn't research. It's no wonder you have a poor understanding of science, astronomy, and astrology- you can't even do proper observation yourself.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;35319322]I think you missed my entire point, great job. Eye witnesses are evidence, yes, but they are the most unreliable and most biased forms of evidence available. Court cases never rule in favor or against something solely based on eyewitness evidence. They are even described by the court as "notoriously unreliable" and as stated by the Innocence Project (dna evidence), "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing." If someone came up to a judge and said they knew who the murder was and proceeded to show them a shacky, low quality video of a silhouette of a man far away where you could make out a red hat or something and the video's authenticity couldn't be proven then the judge probably wouldn't convict the man to death just because he might also have a red hat at home. Again, just because there's a lot of belief towards a certain something without any real evidence to support it doesn't make that thing true or add any sort of real truth or reliability to the matter. "Just because it isn't proven, that doesn't mean it can't be true." Who said anything about can't? I just said that there's no evidence therefor it isn't true, not that it can't be true.[/QUOTE] Whether the evidence is unreliable or not, it's still evidence. Maybe not the absolute best evidence, I'm not arguing that. Again, it's still evidence regardless of how "unreliable" it is. Maybe if one or two people said that they saw a UFO, I could understand. But it's MILLIONS of people. Granted, some of those are probably just misconceptions, but we shouldn't rule out the obvious fact that not EVERY SINGLE one of those sightings were just misconceptions.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319744]No you blasted fool. The difference was the Greeks DID NOT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. WE DO. WE USE IT TODAY ALL THE TIME. The logic Greeks would have used would probably support Bigfoot existing, but the Scientific Method used today would prove the opposite.[/QUOTE] Oh, you and your scientific method. I feel I keep on running around in circles with this. But, ok, let's run with it. For arguments sake, let's say that neither the Greeks or the Babylonians used it. But that means sod all to the point, because neither did Gallileo. [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35319763']Fine, here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy[/url] Read it. The first sentences of the articles refute you point and show mine to be true. Don't try to hard. You aren't backing up your points, you're pulling specific modern definitions and stretching those to be used to try and make it seem that: Ancient people used astronomy, not astrology Therefore ancient people used observation Therefore observation is part of the scientific method Therefore the scientific method was used by ancient people Therefore ancient people's grasp of science was equal to ours now Therefore science changes and is unreliable Therefore science is not always applicable Therefore science does not need to be applied to explaining Bigfoot Therefore we can't assume Bigfoot is not real When this is retardedly stretching everything. If you actually did any "research" then you would see that what Sob, me, and in part Lilyo is saying is true. Instead, your "research" is just reading a quote that sounds about right and assuming that's the full story. It's not, and your quote here: Absolutely proves it. Even using a modern definition of astrology, you can't even read enough to know that your sarcastic response about astrology having anything to do with the observance of the sun is actually completely right unsarcastically- modern astrology, and ancient, has everything to do with the motion of the sun along the ecliptic, passing along the zodiac constellations. You aren't backing up your claims, you're trying to refute both common knowledge and facts with extremely specific definitions. That isn't research. It's no wonder you have a poor understanding of science, astronomy, and astrology- you can't even do proper observation yourself.[/QUOTE] "At this time astrology and astronomy were not distinguished as separate disciplines; the act of astronomical observation was often done by someone who had astrological motives for doing so. Indeed, astrologers' professional responsibility and desire for predictive knowledge for a large part spurred the advancement of astronomy, and the Babylonians developed a very precise ability to mathematically predict the location of celestial points and phenomena based upon their observable cycles." So yes, you are right, they were one and the same. I was wrong on that point. However, you are wrong in the sense that the astronomers also observed the planets and made mathematical caluclations. And this isn't entirely about Bigfoot, since my original point was "that science can't be used to completely rule out the unexplained, since our understanding of things is constantly changing."
[QUOTE=deaded38;35319779]Whether the evidence is unreliable or not, it's still evidence. Maybe not the absolute best evidence, I'm not arguing that. Again, it's still evidence regardless of how "unreliable" it is. Maybe if one or two people said that they saw a UFO, I could understand. But it's MILLIONS of people. Granted, some of those are probably just misconceptions, but we shouldn't rule out the obvious fact that not EVERY SINGLE one of those sightings were just misconceptions.[/QUOTE] You also have to consider the fact that UFO sightings only began in the last century, and that there is a disturbing correlation with how aliens are seen in the media, and how eyewitness reports differ. The first UFOs were more or less newfangled Jet planes being tested. This built up on itself over and over. People see UFOs not because there was one there, but because they WANT TO SEE IT. [QUOTE=David29;35319802] But that means sod all to the point, because neither did Gallileo.[/QUOTE] Are you shitting me? He was one of the first people to start doing actual science, and not bullshit.
[QUOTE=David29;35319802]Oh, you and your scientific method. I feel I keep on running around in circles with this. But, ok, let's run with it. For arguments sake, let's say that neither the Greeks or the Babylonians used it. But that means sod all to the point, because neither did Gallileo.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Galileo_Galilei]Galileo used the basis of the scientific method through scientific methodology.[/url] He still followed the method for the most part. [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319833]You also have to consider the fact that UFO sightings only began in the last century, and that there is a disturbing correlation with how aliens are seen in the media, and how eyewitness reports differ. The first UFOs were more or less newfangled Jet planes being tested. This built up on itself over and over. People see UFOs not because there was one there, but because they WANT TO SEE IT.[/QUOTE] Eh, I could argue with that one. Foo Fighters were arguably the first modern UFOs, and they weren't jets. Before then, there were sightings of UFOs. It would be of interest to look up the list so you can see for yourself. I'm not going to argue UFOs, though, because you are mostly right, I think.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319833]Are you shitting me? He was one of the first people to start doing actual science, and not bullshit.[/QUOTE] Then what did he do that astronomers didn't?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35319842'] Eh, I could argue with that one. Foo Fighters were arguably the first modern UFOs, and they weren't jets. Before then, there were sightings of UFOs. It would be of interest to look up the list so you can see for yourself. I'm not going to argue UFOs, though, because you are mostly right, I think.[/QUOTE] Well I am referring to Area 51 as a prominent example. Many people think that the area has much to do with aliens and other nonsense due to sightings there. In actual fact, it was used for testing experimental military aircraft during the cold war. As a result, people attributed them to UFOs. [QUOTE=David29;35319940]Then what did he do that astronomers didn't?[/QUOTE] He used the damn scientific method.
[QUOTE=David29;35319940]Then what did he do that astronomers didn't?[/QUOTE] Atrologers*
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319967]He used the damn scientific method.[/QUOTE] I face-palmed at this. Care to elaborate? You can say it until you are blue the face, but unless you actually tell me [i]in which forms[/i] it means fuck-all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35319967]Well I am referring to Area 51 as a prominent example. Many people think that the area has much to do with aliens and other nonsense due to sightings there. In actual fact, it was used for testing experimental military aircraft during the cold war. As a result, people attributed them to UFOs. [/QUOTE] This is true, but not many people except for the big conspiracy people tend to think of Groom Lake having UFOs. But Cash-Landrum, for instance, is alot harder to tackle. [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;35320024]I face-palmed at this. Care to elaborate? You can say it until you are blue the face, but unless you actually tell me [i]in which forms[/i[ it means fuck-all.[/QUOTE] I gave you a link to the Wikipedia article on the history of the scientific method that specifically has a section on Galileo.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35320033']I gave you a link to the Wikipedia article on the history of the scientific method that specifically has a section on Galileo.[/QUOTE] Oh cool, he used mathematics. Just like the Greeks did.
[QUOTE=David29;35320064]Oh cool, he used mathematics. Just like the Greeks did.[/QUOTE] It's not about what they used, it's about how they went about explaining it and how they validated it. You missed the point. Sobotnik explained this very well earlier. While Galileo would observe and experiment, he would record his results and then validate them, and then propose a theory based on that. The Greeks would observe, and then fit that into their mythology without anything further. Simply observing is not all there is to it, it's the rest of the [I]fucking method that matters that the Greeks did not use[/I].
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];35320130']It's not about what they used, it's about how they went about explaining it and how they validated it. You missed the point. Sobotnik explained this very well earlier. While Galileo would observe and experiment, he would record his results and then validate them, and then propose a theory based on that. The Greeks would observe, and then fit that into their mythology without anything further. Simply observing is not all there is to it, it's the rest of the [I]fucking method that matters that the Greeks did not use[/I].[/QUOTE] Really? Your saying any theory - or even fact - brought about by ancient civilisations is automatically redundant because they didn't record them? Christ, it must have been hell for the Greeks: "Look, I just discovered Mercury! Oh, wait, no I haven't - it can't exist until Gallileo invents scientific theory". The whole idea of scientific method is irrelevent - scientific discoveries have always been taking place in history. You're just being pedantic because a theory was put together that doesn't fit in with the modern idea of what science is. But fine, we will play by your game. The Greeks, using [b]protoscience[/b], established the theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth, which was later disproven. Happy? And if you doubt any more the capabilities of the Greeks in the scientific field: "The earliest Greek philosophers, known as the pre-Socratics, provided competing answers to the question found in the myths of their neighbors: "How did the ordered cosmos in which we live come to be?"[13] The pre-Socratic philosopher Thales, dubbed the "father of science", was the first to postulate non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes. Pythagoras of Samos founded the Pythagorean school, which investigated mathematics for its own sake, and was the first to postulate that the Earth is spherical in shape. Subsequently, Plato and Aristotle produced the first systematic discussions of natural philosophy, which did much to shape later investigations of nature. Their development of deductive reasoning was of particular importance and usefulness to later scientific inquiry."
[QUOTE=David29;35320280]Really? Your saying any theory - or even fact - brought about by ancient civilisations is automatically redundant because they didn't record them? Christ, it must have been hell for the Greeks: "Look, I just discovered Mercury! Oh, wait, no I haven't - it can't exist until Gallileo invents scientific theory". The whole idea of scientific method is irrelevent - scientific discoveries have always been taking place in history. You're just being pedantic because a theory was put together that doesn't fit in with the modern idea of what science is. But fine, we will play by your game. The Greeks, using [b]protoscience[/b], established the theory of the Sun revolving around the Earth, which was later disproven. Happy?[/QUOTE] Firstly- I did not say that. At all. you took one word- recording- out of my list of a process, and then declared (like you did with observation) that the entire fucking thing was what you interpret it to be. Secondly, no- it's not. The scientific method is the modern instrument in science and observation. What you're saying isn't dissimilar to saying that grammar doesn't need to be used- any sort of writing made with archaic methods is on equal footing as modern grammatical languages. And it's not. The Greeks (in this analogy- don't get butthurt on me bro, I know you have a tendency to strawman and blow things out of proportion) did not have a grammatical system. They made writings that were not ordered, they didn't make any sense, and rarely could they splice together words in a coherent way. Now we do have a grammatical order of things, and we can all make actual paragraphs and books. Because of that order. But now you're proposing that grammar is irrelevant, because at one point we didn't have grammar and we still made sentences. Well, yes, we did, and most of them made no fucking sense. We had a few proper words written, sometimes even in the proper order as to make a coherent thought. But that doesn't mean that we can just write without grammar anymore. No. We need the scientific method, and ignoring it is giving up any credibility and any order.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.