iPads are great, but posting links or lengthy entries is sometimes a bit of a challenge over the traditional sized mouse and keyboard. Was trying to link to the Three Dog Night song...

What do you think the three research articles that I posted do? Do they just say "natural selection did it?" Or do they investigate the genetic mechanisms that allow natural selection for Finch beaks to work?

As one summary of the above research concludes,
"These results show that regulation of beak development by one gene, CaM, controls beak length and is responsible for the longer beaks that cactus finches use to probe for nectar in cactus flowers and fruit. As described above, the team’s earlier work showed that the BMP4 gene controls beak depth and width and is responsible for the broader, heavier beaks found in the seed-eating ground finches. It is becoming clear that modulating the effects of these two genes yields the wide array of beak sizes and shapes present in Darwin’s finches. Moreover, control of these important characteristics by just two (or a few) genes may explain why these birds can adapt so readily to a constantly changing environment. A hundred and fifty years after aiding Darwin in formulating his theory of natural selection, Darwin’s finches are still providing valuable insights into the origin of species."

I’m glad you asked Oh Henry!

All are simply explaining part of a cell sensing circuit that would be included in a circuit schematic like this one:

http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?hsa04110

Evolutionary theory (Modern Synthesis) is not needed. Can explain how all that works without once even mentioning it. The paradigm has no explanatory power here.

It is simply wrong to suggest like you were that the theory can best explain bird beak morphology and other things it cannot. Your theory does not have a core model for these systems, like the theory I work on has.

I really don't want to get sucked into a deep discussion about your "theory" - if I wanted to poke at that carcass, I'd have done so in that thread. But I'll proceed so far as interests me.

First, you missed the point of my question... You said, "Over and over repeating that natural-selection-did-it does not explain the mechanisms," and my response (in the form of a semi-rhetorical question) was that the article did not claim 'natural-selection-did-it,' but did in fact explain a mechanism. That mechanism happens to support natural selection. You claim the mechanism is also compatible with your "theory." You object that evolution isn't needed. Well, anyone could just as easily object that ID isn't needed. So, whats your point?

Second, After much thought (and I have to say it is very hard to decipher what you are trying to say, both in your thread comments and in your rambling document)... It seems as if both you and a classic Darwinian explanation would agree that modulating the effects of the two genes (CaM and BMP4) yields the wide array of beak sizes and shapes present in the finches.
Where you differ is that,
D: a simple Darwinian explanation would say that a beak is created more or less similar to the parents' beaks but sometimes significantly different. If and how the bird can use the beak to its advantage will determine whether or not that individual survives long enough to pass on its genes to offspring. As the birds diversify and some successfully fill different niches (nectivore, insectivore, etc), those genotypes persist.
G: Gary would say that a finch's genome ("circuit"?) somehow detects which environmental conditions exist, and then triggers the proper genes to grow a beak that ensures the best chance of survival in that environment.

Is that correct? If not, how do you characterize the difference?

Don’t poke the wrong spot or you’ll somehow find out the hard way that the state of the art in making the cognitive related sciences easy is the sort of thing that takes on a life of its own. Has the work of David Heiserman and others contained in it so you’re arguing against the most respected experts in order to make it appear that the theory has no scientific merit.



Yes, and I agreed, and added what needed to be said about trying to make it seem that Evolutionary Synthesis (evolutionary theory) was needed to figure that out.



My point is that evidence from other theory that supports your theory, is not an example of your theory having been useful for explaining how something works. Only thing that happened is your theory did not fall apart because of it. An example of being useful is epigenetics of Darwin’s Finches being made simple to understand within the logical construct of another that explains its basic circuit and where to begin modeling it.


What I am saying is that the parading around of a single theory like it explains almost everything while the rest of science and many of the people in it go to hell from the politics, is just a damn shame.

Two clearly stated choices of interpretation; Gary is asked to clarify and coment but instead punts with a paranoid non-answer about politics. And he wonders why he isn't taken seriously around here.

Administrator level academic policy that requires automatic discrediting of politically inconvenient areas of science is academic negligence. For your own sake, you better take that seriously.

So why the rant? Why don't you simply address Oh Henry's question? I was curious myself as to how you would answer it.

I’m honestly so at my wits-end with the dwelling on evolutionary theory I’m sick of having to argue over it. All of this should have years ago been settled. But since you mentioned that you were interested in the answer I’ll give it a go for you.


Yes. Like the Design form of the Intelligence Design Lab when you change the settings of the controls you get an array of shapes and sizes. Is no big deal, that this happens.


Bird beaks being similar to their parents is I’m sure a millions years old observation, even children understand the concept just fine. And it’s just common sense if the beak does not work for it then it does not survive, has no offspring. Where that is all the Darwinian explanation has to say, it’s not even worth mentioning.


Yes that is what the most recent papers indicate, cell sensing into chemically addressed memory that takes molecular actions, as is explained in the theory for modeling that. Where the theories differ is that the Darwinian paradigm has nothing important to add to explain how it works, the other theory demonstrates its required parts and how they all work together to produce a self-learning system that can change itself over time.

Okay. So, what are these "most recent papers?" What is "cell-sensing" (no mention of it in your ID paper) and how does it work in finches?

Your ID paper is incredibly weak on citations. How you think 17 references is enough to re-write biology textbooks is beyond me.
1.Your first three references (one website and two PNAS papers) support that chemotaxis occurs in E.coli, but certainly don't show how your computer model would be useful in simulating these responses, as your sentence suggests. You provide no further explanation.
2.The "section" (and I use quotes with "section" because there are no real sections. Everything just rambles into each other.) outlining the four conditions for self-learning intelligence contains zero citations. That includes requirement #3 about sensory feedback systems in which you talk about E.coli again.
3.Your "section" on random and pseudorandom stuff contains zero citations.
4.The "section" providing a rambling definition of intelligence (which I would think is a cornerstone of your argument) contains zero citations.
5.The origins of life "section" is devoid of any of the predictions promised in the opening sentences and seems to be devoid of anything special to ID (maybe I'm wrong). It seems to conclude that "living things profoundly change each other in response to each other’s behavior," which is so cutting-edge that I learned it in a 6th grade (evolution-based) science class. None of the few citations have any special relevance to ID.
6. There is a relative flurry of citations on page 7 in regards to genetic memory and co-dependent species, but none of these really address the key difference between Gary's ID and evolution. One reference is from 1984 (not recent), two references are to the New Scientist, which is a pop journal, not peer-reviewed lit. And one is to a TED Talk (wtf?). I'm not sure the PNAS, 1984 paper says what you think its says, Gary, but I'll give you credit if you can provide a succinct summary of that article in your own words (lol). The New Scientist articles are interesting, but you cite the first with no explanation, and you repeat the amusing, but irrelevant, "farmer" metaphor of the second article so closely that it borders on plagiarism (its not enough to simply include '[14]' somewhere in the text). But ultimately I have to wonder, why didn't you cite the original research? My guess is that you didn't read it. Ditto for the TED talk.
7. The final two references have to do with gene copying, and to be honest, I don't know if you are faithfully conveying the research or not, and assuming you are, I don't see how it provides ID with explanatory power beyond what it provides Natural Selection.

So what are the most recent papers - that you didn't bother to include in your ID paper?



It "demonstrates?" I think you've made many assertions (pages upon pages of un-cited assertions), but you haven't demonstrated anything. You wrote a program that does what you want it to do, but your program's obedience doesn't really equate to any actual understanding of how the real world works. Does your program use actual biological/genetic data? What species of bee? What specific genes control the bee eye characteristics that you are modeling? Does your program closely predict the genetic variance found within the actual bee population?

I did not go into any detail on it for this shortened version of the theory written for computer programmers, but put the reference that pertains to e.coli from the full version in the Further Reading and Resources:

Internal sensing machinery directs the activity of the regulatory network in Escherichia coli
Agustino Martinez-Antonio, Sarath Chandra Janga, Heladia Salgado & Julio Collado-Vides
http://regulondb.ccg.unam.mx/CellSensing.jsp


I appreciate your taking the time to actually read it before trashing, most only need the title, but if you are expecting to have to “re-write biology textbooks” and need a citation for every single sentence then you are just playing games in order to stop science, not advancing science.


That is another model that I cannot afford to finish, that is not worth rushing into because of how the entire system works not yet understood. All have to make do with what I could afford to finish, and what is in the full version of the theory that would allow someone who knows what they are doing to program a complete as is now possible model.


Then you better throw out Darwin’s theory, because he did not have citations for what he was the first to describe, either.


Then look it up online or get a good book for beginners on how to program a computer, or whatever. Needing citations for absolutely everything, is just trying to fabricate a problem where none exists.


If you are too lazy to yourself test a theory then go ahead and throw all of them out of science because none of them had citations to previous theory that said the exact same thing.


The sentence you quoted is more specifically from Social Learning Theory where "behavior" is part of a three way interaction and is stated as "4. Reciprocal causation: Bandura proposed that behavior can influence both the environment and the person. In fact each of these three variables, the person, the behavior, and the environment can have an influence on each other." That is NOT what Evolutionary Synthesis is based upon, it only requires two things, random mutation/change/etc. and natural selection for the theory to be coherent, in part because of using generalizations that allow the intelligence to be ignored instead of specifics that require the intelligence at all levels to be considered.

It also looks to me like you are demanding a supernatural theory that brings a supernatural deity out of the sky to personally demonstrate ex-nihilo creation for you. If that is the case then you will have to settle for a scientific theory that contains a good amount of 6’th grade scientific knowledge.


Where the source of the information is cited, it is not plagiarism to accurately state or interpret what they said. If it is otherwise and I have to purposely take what is stated out of context then I will need an incredible amount of evidence before believing that.

Because of the theory being for K-12 and up I also cite good news articles of papers that are closed access, and videos worth watching. If I am able to publish another version which will be book length by the time that kind of detail is added then I will include more references. With even the condensed version longer than a journal article is supposed to be I'm sure you'll find anything publishable in a journal to be incomplete, and a book length version more than you would be willing to study and complain about it being too long.


Show me how “Natural Selection” explains the basics of how intelligence works, provides its operational definition, how to program a intelligent causation event, etc.. I would like to see you try to make believe that you can explain all that with a theory that only has a genetic algorithm that is not intended to be used for modeling three or more levels of intelligence including brains.


There have been a good number of new papers on lincRNA and other things that are now just beginning to be understood, but it will take some time to put all that into the theory now under construction for biologists, which may have to be done without me because this poverty and all that goes with it like living with teeth rotting inside the gums I can’t afford to take care of, is literally killing me. Thankfully though, the theory is now getting around and can survive on it’s own without me. One way or another, my suicide mission is almost over.


Yes it is directly based upon real world biology and expecting a PC to have the computing power to produce a molecule by molecule model of a bee is setting unrealistic goals, especially where just a fraction of how it works is even understood. Is the same thing as expecting Charles Darwin to have every molecule of the mechanism that exists at three intelligence levels fully explained including every neuron and synapse in the brain of everything alive, before accepting that what he said has some scientific merit. Goalposts certainly move fast, on your side of the uneven playing field.

Then why on Earth are you referring to it in your paper?



Sorry, Gary. But citations are very important. It is incumbent on YOU to show your work, its not my job to try to re-invent your lopsided wheel. If you want people to take you seriously, then you have to act like a professional. Take your "section" where you define intelligence - zero citations. Where does this definition come from? What are the other definitions of intelligence that scientists recognize and use? How are they different from yours? Why is your definition superior? Having completely ignored the existing literature on intelligence, it just appears you made up a definition tailored to your conclusions. You have to show that you understand the existing literature, that you can put your ideas into context with existing research. Otherwise it looks like you're just making things up. Which I think you are.

Unfortunately Gary, you and Darwin are separated by (among many other things) 150+ years. Although the Royal Society was in the act of formalizing requirements for publications, scientific papers at the time were not exactly what we would recognize as a scientific paper today. An acceptable citation at the time might have been along the lines of, "Lyell said," and since everyone in the small field of science knew who Lyell was, the attribution was complete. Moreover, Darwin spent years doing field work and much of his evidence for his theory was not based on the existing literature, but on his own observations which he faithfully documented. Sure, you wrote a program, Gary, but you haven't done your own intelligence research, your own "cell-sensing" research, your own random/pseudorandom research, your own genetics research. You rely on that stuff from other people (or at least you should), and so when you discuss it, you need to cite it. All of it. Ultimately, Darwin (after presenting several scientific papers to the Linnean Society of London, among others) synthesized his work into a book probably meant for a more general (but learned) audience than just the several dozen academics that might have purely scientific interest at the time. When people (even scientists) publish in the popular press, we forgive them for not including formal citations. But we still expect their ideas to be fleshed out and properly attributed even if in the same style as, "Lyell said." But all along Gary, you've been talking about SCIENCE, and how you want to be taken seriously by scientists, and you want your ideas taught in science classrooms. A half-baked notion that is poorly conceived, poorly written, and poorly documented will NEVER go anywhere IN SCIENCE until you disgard this egotistical notion that you are Darwin or Galileo or some other persecuted giant from the past, and you sit down and DO THE WORK. You want others to read the background lit, you want others to edit the paper for you, you want others to pick the ball up and run and do the research. You're just goddamned lazy. And that is why you fail.



I don't want another supernatural theory. In fact, its refreshing to have not read about a creator or intelligent designer. I have no idea what you're ranting about.



You simply have to make it clear to the reader where the ideas and language in your text come from. When I read the odd extended metaphor about the farmer, I thought you had come up with that. The citation seemed to tied to the fact of the amoebas relationship with bacteria. Then I read the citation and I saw the same exact extended metaphor in the New Scientist article. You need to make it clear that the metaphor is correctly attributed, since its not yours. Simply writing, "Borrowing a metaphor from X,..." is probably sufficient.


You're putting the cart before the horse. To sell to K-12, you need to establish this idea of yours in the science community. And the science community will not take you seriously if you are citing magazines and TED talks. When you reach emeritus status somewhere, you can go off the reservation and cite whom you please, but until then you need act by the book to be taken seriously. I honestly think you are citing secondary sources because you don't have access to, or are intellectually unable to follow, the primary literature.



Natural selection doesn't attempt to explain how intelligence works. It doesn't define intelligence. Its doesn't address "intelligent causation events." Why does everyone demand that Evolution/natural selection explain stuff outside of its purview?



You're gross. Are you too lazy to brush your teeth, too?


You're such a martyr. Lazy. But still a martyr. Gary Gaulin, egotistical and rotten-toothed patron saint of lazy scholarship.


Darwin didn't understand the mechanism - he couldn't have. But he observed the effects, and created an abstraction, which has proven to stand the test of time as the genetic mechanisms are better understood.
YOU claim to know the mechanism. YOU're the one who claims to have successfully modeled molecular or cellular intelligence.
You're the one who posted this picture as some explanation of gene modulation in finches...
http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?hsa04110
Does your program mimic that or something pretty similar? If so, which genetic pathway are you using, and where did you get the bee gene info? What biological/chemical data are you using as inputs?

I can write a program that loosely predicts tomorrow's temperature based on todays, and then I can suggest that temperature is dependent on some RAM circuit in the atmosphere. And even draw flowchart or circuit diagram and use "circuit" terminology to describe this function. But this says nothing about the real world - that temperature is largely a function of latitude, altitude, seasonality, and continentality. How is your ID program different? At least my hypothetical program would use real data (today's temp) to make a testable prediction (tomorrow's temp). You can't even do that.

Good post Oh Henry. You hit some nails squarely on the heads.

The preliminary information needed to construct the model is in the full version of the theory that is linked to from the condensed version, for those who need more information like this, which explains what is currently known about it:


The way a theory works is one person takes it as far as is necessary to show that it is coherent and testable, then shows it to others who would like to further develop it. It’s simply unrealistic to expect that every single detail must be fully described and every possible model already fully developed.


The operational definition came from me. Febble helped by critiquing versions of the opening sentence which over time improved it.


Believe it or not, a dictionary. Here’s a video on the Origin of Intelligence that was recommended to me, see 2:06 for their operational definition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEEXK3A57Hk


It’s superior because needing a standard dictionary for a scientific operational definition indicates that science needs one very badly. What is found in a Google search like “operational definition for intelligence” is a joke, even the dictionary definition in the anti-ID video on the Origin of Intelligence beats what I saw in other places.


If you think there is a more complete one, then good luck finding it. I for decades studied the essence of intelligence, which is why I am now in a position to operationally define it.


That’s an interesting rant of your own. But if you looked at what is in Acknowledgements you would find the text from a book by David Heiserman that had the best operational definition I ever found, that I worked from in order to derive the one in theory.

And neither Darwin or Galileo had to write a theory that was deemed taboo by all major academia. If they were and their overwhelming number of adversaries won, then you would not have even heard of them because they would not have been allowed to publish their work anywhere. Thankfully the internet eliminated the need to be at the mercy of an organized political effort to censor what someone like me has to say. Because of the kind of people in the shadows who are cheering me on, there is no doubt this moment in history is going to live on, and I have to take that responsibility very seriously.


Coming from you, that’s an encouraging sign. I’ll leave at that.


I rarely quote so exactly but where it’s no more than one sentence I just cite it at the end. Or like in Acknowledgements I present the important text that needs crediting, and there also gave credit for the premise of the theory that starts it off by linking to its source, the Discovery Institute. Personally, as long as the grammar looks good to them I would rather be directly quoted with credit after the sentence than have them purposely reword it to something else just to say they didn’t directly quote me. If it’s more than one sentence that needs to be in the main part of the text then like in Acknowledgements I would make a quote block and mention the source at the top, like other papers do.


As did Charles Darwin I am writing for the general reader (K-12 level) including good videos which is here important because of this being such an interdisciplinary theory even accomplished scientists or programmers would have trouble with what is way out of their field.

Half or more of the time I have no access to the literature. In cases like that I read the abstract and what gets quoted in forums then cite a good news article on the topic. If that is a problem for someone in the scientific community then they need to make sure what they publish is open access or at least send me a copy so I can read it before citing with the article I would keep for those who would not have access.

In cases where what is being stated is routine common knowledge such as difference between random/pseudorandom I do not go looking for a paper just so one is there to look good. On something like that writing a paper on it is somewhat ridiculous anyway, or is at least to someone like me who has known about it since the 1980’s or so.


In that case you were criticizing the way I was explaining how human molecular intelligence works by saying:


The two references in question are on “chromosome speciation” and another titled “The effect of translocation-induced nuclear reorganization on gene expression” explaining “the rearranging of the chromosome territories can produce large-scale gene expression changes” which pertains to (human) molecular intelligence chromosome speciation. The paper was on chromosome rearrangements, not gene duplication. Neither of these immediate changes have anything at all to do with natural selection, they were simply born with something that made them unique among their kind that in some cases sets them on a path to quickly speciate, or the chromotype is soon made gone because of reproductive problems between unlike kinds.

If you suggest Natural Selection has greater explanatory power than what was being explained in that section then I am obliged to challenge you to try, and in this case it had to be in the context of the molecular intelligence mechanism.


I had metal braces, broken jaw, hit in the chin that fractured them (one broke down the center and had to be pulled), dental cleanings that went through the enamel, kickback from starting the diamond rock-saw that had me dancing around in pain from being bashed together hard enough I heard them cracking, and old fillings that fell out I could not afford to have fixed. My teeth had a good amount of trauma to begin with and the last time I could afford a dentist I was looking at a couple thousand dollars to fix just a couple of them with root canals and a bridge. I’m now easily up to ten grand and like others in my situation am just living with it. Not even 24/7 brushing is going to keep teeth with giant holes where fillings used to be from in time decaying. But since I still have my front teeth while friends younger than I no longer have those anymore I must consider myself lucky even though it would have been much better to have had the dentistry when I needed it, and be able to replace the fillings that fell out. Sometimes the pain is excruciating and gets into my sinuses, but most of the time its just a numb aching feeling I can put out of my mind.


That’s a creepy statement. Too bad your brown-nose keeps you with the bullies, and my letting you know who you really are keeps me the bullied. And it’s not that I don’t have excellent relations with a good number in academia, it’s just ones who go around looking for someone to bash that I had to harden myself against and now live each day like the worse your combined effort can do is eventually kill me. It’s not trying to play the role of a martyr that’s what folks call “courage” or “bravery” which some also consider to be a reckless stupidity but they don’t give any medals for that.


I did not claim I already modeled them, I have been claiming that I have not been able to afford to and cannot make a complete model anyway because of what is not yet known. And save your grand speeches for the clubhouse awards ceremony for the brown-noser of the year award, that I think you have a good chance of winning. Making it seem like all has already been explained and all I need to do is to be like you and all will be revealed in the literature, is a good gimmick to impress the judges.


I said “All are simply explaining part of a cell sensing circuit that would be included in a circuit schematic like this one”

This is the link to where I said it:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2041&p=20557&hilit=kegg#p20557

I could not find the circuit in question in the Kegg database, possibly because of there not yet being enough information to place it in the circuit or they have enough work keeping up with other things, just like I have, and don’t care about finch beaks right now. If it was there then I would have shown that instead and have explained where to find it in the circuit.


In the program I have been working on, schematically, e.coli chemotaxis starts with sensory that looks like this:



Kegg shows more of what is known about the circuit like this:

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/eco/eco02030.html
http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/eco/eco02040.html

And other known systems that work with and around it like this:

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/eco/eco02010.html
http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway/eco/eco02020.html

I stopped with the program when the literature reached the still unknown, needed to model what I wanted in that amount of detail.


Typical bully-talk, that at this point is not even worth answering. But at least Norm liked it.

Unfortunately Gary insists on playing the part of the black knight in a Monty Python skit. The sad thing is, I don't think Gary is being willful, he is just blissfully ignorant of what science is, and what science requires.

Just a few observations:
- he admits he has no formal or informal science training.
- he thinks he deserves to "cut to the front of the line" in terms of getting his work taught in public schools, bypassing the normal avenue by which science is included in k-12 curriculum.
- he thinks that first coming up with a hypothesis and then writing a program specifically tailored to create output consistent with his hypothesis, is the equivalent of the scientific method.
- he thinks shopping his ideas around anonymous internet forums is the equivalent of peer-review.
- he thinks submitting his source code to a clearinghouse is the equivalent of publishing.
- he thinks a forum moderator checking to see if his code compiles, runs, and doesn't consist of:
For x = 1 to 1000
print "Howard Stern's penis! ";
Next x
is the equivalent of peer-review.
- he thinks that anonymous forum users rating his code with "5 globes" is the equivalent of peer review.
- he thinks that anonymous forum users rating his code with "1 globe" is the equivalent of political interference.
- he thinks that all downloads of his paper are by grateful scientists using it for their own research, not by people needing a good laugh or showing it to their students as an example of god-awful scholarship (oh yes I will!).
- he thinks a requirement to cite all his sources is just an attempt to sandbag his efforts to "advance" science.
- he thinks that secondary and tertiary sources are just as good as primary sources.
- he thinks if a reader is curious about a fact or statement written by Gary, the reader should do the background research him/herself.
- he thinks that Google, a standard dictionary, and non-academic hobby electronics books are the only sufficient sources for definitions of scientific terms and concepts. Even biological terms and concepts.
- he thinks that any genetics website or paper he digs up on Google that uses the analogy/term "circuit" is relevant and supportive of his idea.
- he thinks that themes central to his idea (e.g. intelligence, genetics) do not have to be researched, documented, or even discussed in detail in a research paper.
- he thinks that a research paper doesn't need to be well organized.
- he thinks that a research paper doesn't need to well written.
- he thinks pouting and clamoring for sympathy will get him somewhere in science - personal anecdotes about his rotten teeth or his woes time-sharing the library's Win95 box are not relevant or interesting.
- he thinks that a research paper can refer to unpublished, undocumented, and incomplete computer programs stored on a floppy disk or in his crowded head.
- he thinks that it is acceptable to write, and present as evidence, a cellular intelligence program that doesn't actually represent the interaction of genes and molecules his hypothesis insists exist, as long as he has plans to write one in the future.
- he thinks that anyone who criticizes or "trashes" his work must be politically motivated. It certainly couldn't be about any of his aforementioned deficiencies.

I don't think Gary reads or understands the primary literature and because of that, he is unable to describe it or cite it. He thinks making up his own definitions and facts is reasonable scholarship. he writes programs to validate his hypothesis, not test it. He doesn't know how to write a proper research paper - even at the high school level. And his hypothesis/program/paper has been (accurately) criticized so many times he's developed an irrational persecution complex.

I said I'd proceed with a discussion of Gary's ID paper as along as it interests me, and it no longer does. I gave it an honest read. I'm sure Gary will respond with more charts and graphs that explain little and clarify nothing, and probably more exciting news that "hotgrl97@aol.com" just gave him the highest achievement known to GaryScience (TM) - a 5 globe rating at randomshit.com. Bravo, Gary.

I'll be around to snipe, but not for lengthy discussions. Cheers!