If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Your dismissal of the Cochrane Library—a repository of meticulously researched, peer-reviewed scientific findings—as a bastion of "right-wing bigots" underscores your profound inability to engage with facts that challenge your preconceived notions. To reject the work of an internationally respected institution out of hand, simply because it presents inconvenient truths, illustrates a willful ignorance and intellectual laziness.
as you well know, the Cochrane Library is intricately tied with WHO.... an organization you have villified again and again here on CT.
I really don't think you know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Please tell us, if WHO is using CL information to draw up their guidelines, and you don't like, in fact vehemently disagree with, the WHO guidelines, what does that say about the CL?
As for your clumsy attempt to leverage German scientists of WWII in your argument, it only serves to further highlight your lack of comprehension. Werner Heisenberg, despite the reprehensible context in which he worked, made invaluable contributions to physics. Recognizing the significance of his scientific achievements does not imply an endorsement of the regime he was under, but rather an understanding that knowledge can transcend its origins. This is the essence of separating science from the scientist.
In this regard, it is you who embodies the very essence of bigotry: a closed mind, impervious to evidence, and quick to dismiss that which you have neither the capacity nor the inclination to understand. Your tenuous arguments to suggest I, as a Jew, support Naziism is yet another example of your vile, ignorant bigotry and nothing but a tactic of reality inversion all too common among hateful antisemites.
LOL you bring up Heisenberg, not even a Nazi, and a devout Christian. You know damn well I am not talking about the Heisenbergs of Germany.
You KNOW who I'm talking about, and you refuse to talk about them. AND you also know I'm not talking about the RESULTS of their "science" but about their METHODS.
Experimenting on Jew slaves .... TALK ABOUT THAT you fake-altruistic pos. NOT THE RESULTS, THE METHODS.
You say you put the science ahead of the scientists, and that means you accept their METHODS if they gained valuable scientific knowledge.
In other words, you accept experimental work on slaves, whether Jew, whether disabled, whether mentally ill, doesn't matter. If they are slaves, go ahead, do experiments on them, gain some scientific knowledge.
I don't accuse you of being Nazi, but rather being Nazi-like. Big difference. Many people do not learn from history. You are one of them.
Originally posted by Pargat PerrerView Post
He said he likes Wagner's music despite Wagner's anti-semitic leanings. (I wrote pro-Nazi, it should have said anti-semitic).
It is no stretch of the imagination to think he COULD -- NOT MUST, BUT COULD -- like the Nazi anthem enough to want to play it anywhere, bar mitzvah or not.
It is a HUGE stretch of the imagination. In fact, imo, it is unimaginable. Only for YOU is it "no stretch." Think I'm wrong? Find just one person, one regular CT poster, who will back up your "no stretch" in writing.
He separates the art from the artist.
Imagine Peter if you will .... a serial child molester .... before he goes on his rampage of assaults, he draws "high-quality" artworks of children.
Pargat, the above paragraph is so typical of your acidic, polemical style. It goes like this:
1. You construct a hypothetical 'house'.
2. Then, almost always with woefully insufficient justification, you insist that your adversary lives in your hypothetical house.
3. Then you treat your hypothetical house as fact and attack your adversary for having the temerity to live there.
Now you have a Sid character comes along years later who, even knowing the nature and history of the artist, hangs the artworks on his walls because he likes them.
Are you ok with that? I am decidedly NOT. There is no separation, and you should reconsider your "respect" for Sid because of his "separation of the art from the artist".
You can argue that Wagner wasn't actually a Nazi .... but you have to ask, would he have been? And if we just assume he would have been, then what? What happens to his music? Is it publicly available even today, for assholes like Sid to "enjoy"?
These are the hard questions we must ask ... and just from the evidence that he probably would have been a Nazi, we must not "separate the art from the artist". Anti-semitic views are what they are, no matter the time period.
I asked Sid a question about German experiments on Jews ... he has ignored that question. That tells me a lot about his integrity (or rather, lack of).
So now you are weighing in, so I must ask YOU the same question (post 3511).
You damn well better answer, and your answer better be the RIGHT answer, if you want any respect from me.
I don't need or want your respect. In fact, the idea of having your respect is repugnant.
Why? I gave several examples ... the US Supreme Court approving bumper stocks ... "yeah, many people will die, but we uphold the right of the gun manufacturers to add this feature for all US citizens to enjoy, it is their right".
WTF Peter, I thought you had morals and balls. Do you know what it means to take a stand against immorality? Then fucking DO IT.
He already ADMITTED to liking the music of a known anti-semite and to playing that music, so no, it is NOT a huge stretch of the imagination. That you would say it is, and even say it is unimaginable, shows your extremely limited sphere of understanding of human nature.
Did you ever imagine before DT came along a convicted felon getting elected as US President? NO I am sure not.
Did you ever imagine women voting for this candidate, who says it is ok to "grab women by the pussy" without their permission? NO I am sure not.
Did you ever imagine this candidate, who refused tenancy to blacks in his buildings for decades, saying "I am the least racist person you have ever met" and not being challenged on that? NO I am sure not.
If Nazism had not ever happened, could you imagine it happening? NO I think not.
If Pearl Harbor had never happened, could you imagine it ever happening? NO I think not, and this is pertinent to the threat today of Russia launching a nuclear attack against the West, or of China invading Taiwan. Most Western politicians dismiss both those scenarios. REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR! FUCKING IDIOTS.
Did you ever imagine Islam fanatics taking over passenger jets and using them as missiles against skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and possibly even nuclear power plants? NO I think not.
If I am guilty of imagining things humans can do that others don't want to / are incapable of imagining, then I'm good with myself.
SO FAR, MY IMAGINATION IS WINNING.
I don't need the respect of mental midgets and fake moralists like you.
Repugnant? You don't even KNOW repugnant!
Unimagineable? You don't know unimaginable!
Oh, and by the way .... I do not insist that my "adversary" actually lives in the house I construct .... only that he COULD live there!!!!
That you fail to see that is a major flaw in your argument and an indicator of biased thinking.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 21st June, 2024, 02:20 AM.
Originally posted by Pargat PerrerView Post
He said he likes Wagner's music despite Wagner's anti-semitic leanings. (I wrote pro-Nazi, it should have said anti-semitic).
It is no stretch of the imagination to think he COULD -- NOT MUST, BUT COULD -- like the Nazi anthem enough to want to play it anywhere, bar mitzvah or not.
It is a HUGE stretch of the imagination. In fact, imo, it is unimaginable. Only for YOU is it "no stretch." Think I'm wrong? Find just one person, one regular CT poster, who will back up your "no stretch" in writing.
He separates the art from the artist.
Imagine Peter if you will .... a serial child molester .... before he goes on his rampage of assaults, he draws "high-quality" artworks of children.
Pargat, the above paragraph is so typical of your acidic, polemical style. It goes like this:
1. You construct a hypothetical 'house'.
2. Then, almost always with woefully insufficient justification, you insist that your adversary lives in your hypothetical house.
3. Then you treat your hypothetical house as fact and attack your adversary for having the temerity to live there.
Now you have a Sid character comes along years later who, even knowing the nature and history of the artist, hangs the artworks on his walls because he likes them.
Are you ok with that? I am decidedly NOT. There is no separation, and you should reconsider your "respect" for Sid because of his "separation of the art from the artist".
You can argue that Wagner wasn't actually a Nazi .... but you have to ask, would he have been? And if we just assume he would have been, then what? What happens to his music? Is it publicly available even today, for assholes like Sid to "enjoy"?
These are the hard questions we must ask ... and just from the evidence that he probably would have been a Nazi, we must not "separate the art from the artist". Anti-semitic views are what they are, no matter the time period.
I asked Sid a question about German experiments on Jews ... he has ignored that question. That tells me a lot about his integrity (or rather, lack of).
So now you are weighing in, so I must ask YOU the same question (post 3511).
You damn well better answer, and your answer better be the RIGHT answer, if you want any respect from me.
I don't need or want your respect. In fact, the idea of having your respect is repugnant.
Why? I gave several examples ... the US Supreme Court approving bumper stocks ... "yeah, many people will die, but we uphold the right of the gun manufacturers to add this feature for all US citizens to enjoy, it is their right".
WTF Peter, I thought you had morals and balls. Do you know what it means to take a stand against immorality? Then fucking DO IT.
He already ADMITTED to liking the music of a known anti-semite and to playing that music, so no, it is NOT a huge stretch of the imagination. That you would say it is, and even say it is unimaginable, shows your extremely limited sphere of understanding of human nature.
Did you ever imagine before DT came along a convicted felon getting elected as US President? NO I am sure not.
Did you ever imagine women voting for this candidate, who says it is ok to "grab women by the pussy" without their permission? NO I am sure not.
Did you ever imagine this candidate, who refused tenancy to blacks in his buildings for decades, saying "I am the least racist person you have ever met" and not being challenged on that? NO I am sure not.
If Nazism had not ever happened, could you imagine it happening? NO I think not.
If Pearl Harbor had never happened, could you imagine it ever happening? NO I think not, and this is pertinent to the threat today of Russia launching a nuclear attack against the West, or of China invading Taiwan. Most Western politicians dismiss both those scenarios. REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR! FUCKING IDIOTS.
Did you ever imagine Islam fanatics taking over passenger jets and using them as missiles against skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and possibly even nuclear power plants? NO I think not.
If I am guilty of imagining things humans can do that others don't want to / are incapable of imagining, then I'm good with myself.
SO FAR, MY IMAGINATION IS WINNING.
I don't need the respect of mental midgets and fake moralists like you.
Repugnant? You don't even KNOW repugnant!
Unimagineable? You don't know unimaginable!
Oh, and by the way .... I do not insist that my "adversary" actually lives in the house I construct .... only that he COULD live there!!!!
That you fail to see that is a major flaw in your argument and an indicator of biased thinking.
I really don't think you know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Please tell us, if WHO is using CL information to draw up their guidelines, and you don't like, in fact vehemently disagree with, the WHO guidelines, what does that say about the CL?
The fact that the Cochrane Library published a meta-analysis on masks that showed no significant efficacy underscores their independence from the WHO. Cochrane is known for its rigorous and unbiased approach to reviewing scientific evidence, which sometimes results in findings that do not align with the guidelines of the WHO. Many journals have been "captured " by the WHO, and indeed, critical thinking must be used when evaluating data these days, including meta-analysis data from the Cochrane Library. For example, the mask meta-analysis included the Bangladesh study despite the fact that it is widely known to be a flawed study;
The Bangladesh Mask study: a Bayesian perspective
Norman Fenton
12 May 2022
A very large trial, whose results were published in Science, carried out in Bangladesh between 2020 and 2021 has been widely acclaimed as providing the most convincing evidence yet that masks work in reducing COVID-19 transmission and infections.
However, the media grossly exaggerated the authors’ conclusions, and skeptical researchers have identified weaknesses in various aspects of the trial and statistical analysis that cast doubts on the significance of the results.
The sole focusof this report is to determine what can really be learned about the impact of mask wearing on covidinfections from the data in the trial.
Using a novel Bayesian causal modeling approach, we find that the claimed benefits do not hold up when subject to this rigorous analysis.
At best, one can conclude that there is only a 52% probability that the seropositivity rate among people subject to a mask intervention campaign is lower than those who are not, while there is a 95% chance that a mask intervention campaign would result in anything between 19,240 fewer positives and 18,500 more positives in every 100,000.
This means there was no discernible effect of the mask intervention on COVID-19 infection. Given that the results of the study have been used explicitly to justify continuing or reintroducing aspects of mask mandates in the USA, UK, and elsewhere, the study paper in Science needs to be corrected or withdrawn.
Experimenting on Jew slaves .... TALK ABOUT THAT you fake-altruistic pos. NOT THE RESULTS, THE METHODS.
You are talking about a false equivalence, as this was pseudoscience under the guise of real science. Clearly, you are desperately grasping for straws as you
are disappointed that you have now been universally rejected in this forum and called out for the dimwitted, nasty little disingenuous troll you are
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
I lower myself to YOUR level because anything is worth it to combat people like you.
I consider that a thinly veiled threat of violence and, indeed, a hate-motivated crime. if you ever post so much as another word on this forum, I will use all legal remedies at my disposal to get you banned from this forum and criminally and civilly charged. You have spent the last decade using this forum to harass, libel and abuse me and now you accuse me a Jew of being a Nazi or "Nazi like" and then threaten me by saying "ANYTHING is worth it to COMBAT people like you"
Well, Mr. Bonham, I will take you at your word; you have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. I can assure you that this entire forum will be very grateful to see you leave.
.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 21st June, 2024, 09:50 PM.
...... The Bangladesh Mask study: a Bayesian perspective
Norman Fenton
12 May 2022
A very large trial, whose results were published in Science, carried out in Bangladesh between 2020 and 2021 has been widely acclaimed as providing the most convincing evidence yet that masks work in reducing COVID-19 transmission and infections.
However, the media grossly exaggerated the authors’ conclusions, and skeptical researchers have identified weaknesses in various aspects of the trial and statistical analysis that cast doubts on the significance of the results.
The sole focusof this report is to determine what can really be learned about the impact of mask wearing on covidinfections from the data in the trial. Using a novel Bayesian causal modeling approach, we find that the claimed benefits do not hold up when subject to this rigorous analysis.
You know what that smacks of, don't you? Invention! "Let's create a complicated mathematical algorithm to discredit the science findings."
You obviously won't accept ANYTHING but the one thing you BELIEVE.
You are talking about a false equivalence, as this was pseudoscience under the guise of real science. Clearly, you are desperately grasping for straws as you
are disappointed that you have now been universally rejected in this forum.....
I don't give a pig's fart about so-called rejection, universal or otherwise. As I demonstrated to Peter --probably much to his embarrassment since I was able to bring up so many things I could image that he couldn't that have actually happened because people CAN BE worse than we want to think they can be -- I am capable of envisioning the worst in people once they give me grounds for it. And your comment that you can separate the science from the scientist was all the grounds I needed.
I know in my heart that you, who are here trying to convince us all that a criminal conspiracy wants us all dead, would rather have many of us alive so as to be subject to scientific experiments once YOUR conspiracy takes over the world.
If that isn't true, then please enlighten us why a successful US businessman whose every minute of every day is worth money would spend so much of that time posting lengthy and detailed diatribes against organizations like WHO, WEF .... on a tiny fucking chess forum in Canada.
WHY, RICH MAN, WHY? It's costing you money to be doing that.
I consider that a thinly veiled threat of violence and, indeed, a hate-motivated crime. if you ever post so much as another word on this forum, I will use all legal remedies at my disposal to get you banned from this forum and criminally and civilly charged. You have spent the last decade using this forum to harass, libel and abuse me and now you accuse me a Jew of being a Nazi or "Nazi like" and then threaten me by saying "ANYTHING is worth it to COMBAT people like you"
Well, Mr. Bonham, I will take you at your word; you have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind. I can assure you that this entire forum will be very grateful to see you leave.
LOL as you can see I am not intimidated. The only "combat" that is happening is here on this forum, and the "anything" referred to taking myself down to your level.
good luck finding Paul Bonham, I really don't think he's alive, or if he is, he is not well. Should you find him, you then face the task of making him to be me, me to be him. You'll be paying lawyers for nothing. and all over postings on a chess forum .... LOL
You really can't stand anyone using your own methods against you. You have libeled, harassed, abused many members of this forum.
good luck finding Paul Bonham, I really don't think he's alive, or if he is, he is not well. Should you find him, you then face the task of making him to be me, me to be him. You'll be paying lawyers for nothing. and all over postings on a chess forum .... LOL
It's probably true; you have done a good enough job of exposing your own ignorance, what you are about, and who you are here.
I especially enjoyed your depiction of Werner Heisenberg as a "devout Christian."The same devout Christian who was in charge of Nazi Germany's nuclear weapons program. He provided vital technical information, including a paper in 1936, "Cosmic Ray showers," and a series of lectures in 1942 on fissionable uranium. Fortunately, the Nazi regime did not prioritize the nuclear weapons program, no thanks to our "devout Christian".
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 23rd June, 2024, 07:29 AM.
Pargat, the above paragraph is so typical of your acidic, polemical style. It goes like this:
1. You construct a hypothetical 'house'.
2. Then, almost always with woefully insufficient justification, you insist that your adversary lives in your hypothetical house.
3. Then you treat your hypothetical house as fact and attack your adversary for having the temerity to live there.
Severe brain fog, psychiatric destabilization, and accelerated dementia are some of the saddest but most common vax injuries I see (especially since no one believes them). Large datasets now show the vaccines roughly double the rates of those conditions. We Now Have Proof The COVID Vaccines Damage Cognition
Examining the causes and treatments of the common neurological injuries caused by vaccination
•Subtle and overt neurological injuries are one of the most common results of a pharmaceutical injury.
•The COVID-19 vaccines excel at causing damage to cognition, and many of us have noticed both subtle and over cognitive impairment following vaccination that relatively few people know how to address.
•For a long time, the hypothesis that the vaccines impaired cognition was “anecdotal” because it was based on individuals observing it in their peer group or patients.
•Recently large datasets emerged which show this phenomenon is very real and that the severe injuries we’ve seen from the vaccines (e.g., sudden death) are only the tip of the iceberg.
•In this article we will review the proof vaccine are doing this and explore the mechanisms which allow it to happen so we can better understand how to treat it.
Note: I originally published this article a year ago. I am republishing it now because a robust dataset emerged which regrettably validates the hypothesis I put forward then.
Not necessarily. You'd have to show that transmissibility of Covid was only as bad as that of the flu. If it's many orders of magnitude higher, you could have the drastic flu drop-off due to lockdowns and mask-wearing, while Covid still spread. One of the things we kept hearing with each new variant was that it was much more transmissible.
You'd also have to prove that positive COVID test could have resulted from having only the flu.
Of course you will not have any of it, we all know by now your opinions on this. They want us all dead etc etc ... so where are all the vaccinated people dropping dead from blood clots? It's more than 2 years later, it's supposed to be happening now. I gave that prediction some possible legitimacy, but now it's pretty much refuted.
. so where are all the vaccinated people dropping dead from blood clots? It's more than 2 years later, it's supposed to be happening now. I gave that prediction some possible legitimacy, but now it's pretty much refuted. Ok
"We also calculate the population-wide risk of death per injection (vDFR) by dose number (1st dose, 2nd dose, boosters) (actually, by time period), and by age (in a subset of European countries). Using the median value of all-ages vDFR for 2021-2022 for the 78 countries with sufficient data gives an estimated projected global all-ages excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts up to 30 December 2022: 16.9 million COVID-19-vaccine-associated deaths."
"We also calculate the population-wide risk of death per injection (vDFR) by dose number (1st dose, 2nd dose, boosters) (actually, by time period), and by age (in a subset of European countries). Using the median value of all-ages vDFR for 2021-2022 for the 78 countries with sufficient data gives an estimated projected global all-ages excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts up to 30 December 2022: 16.9 million COVID-19-vaccine-associated deaths."
I am talking about NOW, 2024, and you respond with something about 2022......
Remember, the story you and others were spreading, which at the time I considered plausible, was that vaccinated people would slowly accumulate blood clots in their capillaries, and within 2 to 3 years, they would drop like flies in huge numbers, from heart attack or stroke related to the blood clots. Well, here we are and there's no sign of it happening.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Tuesday, 13th August, 2024, 06:44 AM.
I am talking about NOW, 2024, and you respond with something about 2022......
Remember, the story you and others were spreading, which at the time I considered plausible, was that vaccinated people would slowly accumulate blood clots in their capillaries, and within 2 to 3 years, they would drop like flies in huge numbers, from heart attack or stroke related to the blood clots. Well, here we are and there's no sign of it happening.
Sadly, these numbers have only gotten worse since the publication of that report.
"There can be little doubt that the peaks in excess ACM are caused by the COVID-19 vaccinations, with a mean all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of vDFR = (0.126 ± 132 0.004) %, or approximately 1 death per 800 injections, which is reasonably expected to be globally representative. This is a staggering number, compared to what is generally believed about traditional vaccines, which is approximately one serious adverse effect per million (Malhotra, 2023). It is three orders of magnitude (one thousand times) larger."
Last year, it was discovered that the manufacturing process contaminated all batches with DNA Plasmid sequences that easily integrate into the genome, causing a new phenomenon of turbo cancers. My late father-in-law, after being injected, immediately had blood clots in the brain and died within a year his body was wracked with vaccine-induced tumors, and the hospital in Montreal put him down like a dog with the lethal drug midazolam that stops one from breathing, and results in a horrible death.
One in 800 dead is only the beginning. The second paper shows estimates that approximately 100 million people have been seriously injured by the vaccine so far. https://www.researchgate.net/publica...extFileContent
It seems you have "no problem" with any of this, so I am not sure why you are denying these gruesome facts other than to troll me.
Tweet
Comment