Jump to content

Is the world polluting the minds of young people with a false narrative of the origin and meaning of life?


Recommended Posts

Creation.com sells a paper magazine called Creation, but also has articles online from past issues.  One has an editorial article called "Radicalizing Young People" by Don Batten.  This goes into the issue of how many if not most young people are radicalized today to protest and support climate alarmism and Greta Thunberg.  Sadly young people, particularly in the public school system, are being brainwashed with humanist, progressivism, liberal ideology.  This article delves into this subject.  This is only one subject of many that young people are being brainwashed on.

The first part of the article says:

" The mass protests of school students about ‘climate change’ have caused many of us to wonder how it has come to this. Even supposed adults are falling over themselves to genuflect to a 16-year-old kid. We are scratching our heads wondering what the world is coming to.

I believe that we can largely trace this radicalizing to the loss of faith in God, particularly in young people. Since the 1960s, once-Christian countries have increasingly indoctrinated all young people in an evolutionary way of thinking—there was a ‘big bang’, where nothing exploded with no cause billions of years ago, and we are the product of purely natural processes (‘evolution’) since then. In other words, we are ‘star dust’, as one famous commentator put it. We are ultimately a chance product of atoms randomly banging around over billions of years.

Because of the evolutionary brainwashing, the indoctrinated now have no purpose to their lives and no eternal hope or perspective.

Such a view has no room for the Bible’s message of God creating us with a purpose; our fall into sin, sickness, and death in Adam; and salvation in Jesus Christ. This brings a life of purpose lived now and a wonderful hope for eternity, including that we will be free of sickness and death.

Because of the evolutionary brainwashing, the indoctrinated now have no purpose to their lives and no eternal hope or perspective. Consequently, young students are looking for some sort of self-authentication, and a crusade to save the planet fits the bill. Hence the fervour, and we are awash with ‘virtue signalling’!

But not many get to consider that if we were all nothing but stardust from a big bang, and it will all end forever when the universe runs out of useable energy, there would be little point to ‘saving the planet’ anyway. How does one get a moral imperative—what we ought to do—from atoms banging around?

Creation magazine provides a powerful counter to the cultural demise around us, for young and old.

Creation magazine provides a powerful counter to the cultural demise around us, for young and old. This issue presents powerful evidence that God did indeed create everything, just like the Bible says. Our ears (pp. 14–17) reveal incredible design! The wonderful world of bats (pp. 28–31), with their amazing echolocation and flight, speaks of divine invention. In the children’s section, the size of the universe (pp. 32–35) highlights God’s all-powerful nature."

For the whole article:

Radicalizing young people - creation.com

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

Creation.com sells a paper magazine called Creation, but also has articles online from past issues.  One has an editorial article called "Radicalizing Young People" by Don Batten.  This goes into the issue of how many if not most young people are radicalized today to protest and support climate alarmism and Greta Thunberg.  Sadly young people, particularly in the public school system, are being brainwashed with humanist, progressivism, liberal ideology.  This article delves into this subject.  This is only one subject of many that young people are being brainwashed on.

 

The push for climate alarmism is primarily based on models with little understanding of how the climate functions globally. I can agree that the alarmism is unnecessarily and cult like. I would say it has become religious, where those asking questions are hunted down. 

However, where your article looses me is when it makes the assertion this is due to young people loosing faith in God, an assertion with no evidence.

The reason could be that young people today are not taught to ask questions (what, how and why) or critically think, they are told what to think. It would be better for (less educated) young people to take more logical reasoning, scientific methodology courses, providing them with the ability to critically think about the ideologies presented.

Fundamentally the climate change claim is a claim of ethics or morals, ie if our actions hurt or kill someone on the other side of the planet, should we change the way we behave? 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Winston said:

Fundamentally the climate change claim is a claim of ethics or morals, ie if our actions hurt or kill someone on the other side of the planet, should we change the way we behave?

What would Jesus do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Winston said:

1. The push for climate alarmism is primarily based on models with little understanding of how the climate functions globally.

2. I can agree that the alarmism is unnecessarily and cult like.

3. I would say it has become religious, where those asking questions are hunted down. 

4. The reason could be that young people today are not taught to ask questions (what, how and why) or critically think, they are told what to think.

5.  if our actions hurt or kill someone on the other side of the planet, should we change the way we behave? 

  

1. "Little understanding" ?  I feel like people who say this have little understanding.  The IPCC predicted .5 degrees C per decade and that's what we are seeing.

2. If cults debate ideas, disagree and test their ideas in the real world then... ok.  But cults don't do that.

3. Climate Denialism is religious and has been from the beginning.  They are impervious to sense.  When I posted a response to the assertion that "the models were wrong" last time, there was no response.  That's orthodoxy right there.

4. Could be... and yet they ARE taught to think critically and back up assertions which you haven't done.  You repeat memes that climate science is a cult because you are told that.

5. I think most of us know how to answer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. This goes into the issue of how many if not most young people are radicalized today to protest and support climate alarmism and Greta Thunberg.  Sadly young people, particularly in the public school system, are being brainwashed with humanist, progressivism, liberal ideology.   

2. The mass protests of school students about ‘climate change’ have caused many of us to wonder how it has come to this. Even supposed adults are falling over themselves to genuflect to a 16-year-old kid. We are scratching our heads wondering what the world is coming to.

 

1. Presumably a religious group would care about morality, which proceeds from care for your fellow man, which would lead to the conclusion that being careful with the environment would be the kindness thing to do for others and future generations.

2. Then the protests are targeted towards you and increasing your understanding.

A lot of your description seems to involve the writer making suppositions about relationships within things.  I get it - he's disappointed with the direction of the world - but lack of faith of God is a symptom, not a cause IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Little understanding" ?  I feel like people who say this have little understanding.  The IPCC predicted .5 degrees C per decade and that's what we are seeing.

2. If cults debate ideas, disagree and test their ideas in the real world then... ok.  But cults don't do that.

3. Climate Denialism is religious and has been from the beginning.  They are impervious to sense.  When I posted a response to the assertion that "the models were wrong" last time, there was no response.  That's orthodoxy right there.

4. Could be... and yet they ARE taught to think critically and back up assertions which you haven't done.  You repeat memes that climate science is a cult because you are told that.

5. I think most of us know how to answer.

1. My issue is not the climate changing. My issue is the assumption of majority man made climate change. How can one determine effects of an input in the system if the system can not be accurately predicted? For example burning a specified amount of diesel a week, causes 1 kg of Co2 gas to be released into the atmosphere, what specific effect(s) does this 1kg release of CO2 have to the climate or change in climate? I am not looking for generalizations or an LCA, but specific measurable changes, from mass released to resultant climate change. I have not found anyone that can answer this question, if you can that would be great.

2. Show me a debate between climate scientists university level where one argues for majority man made climate change and argues minimal man made climate change?

Can a scientist come out to the world with a view that society has minimal effect on climate change without loosing notability or funding? 

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Winston said:

1. My issue is not the climate changing. My issue is the assumption of majority man made climate change. How can one determine effects of an input in the system if the system can not be accurately predicted? 

2. For example burning a specified amount of diesel a week, causes 1 kg of Co2 gas to be released into the atmosphere, what specific effect(s) does this 1kg release of CO2 have to the climate or change in climate?  

3. Show me a debate between climate scientists university level where one argues for majority man made climate change and argues minimal man made climate change?

4. Can a scientist come out to the world with a view that society has minimal effect on climate change without loosing notability or funding? 

 



 

1. I think I already explained that the prediction is .5 degrees C per decade, which is computed by a mathematical analysis of the impact of CO2 on earth's temperature.
2. Yes, this kind of thing is known on a large scale.
3. You can find such things on the web if you look.  
4. Science is done via PUBLICATION.  They publish their ideas then debate them.  I don't think there are any viable alternate theories still being debated in the last 20 years, but before then there were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think I already explained that the prediction is .5 degrees C per decade, which is computed by a mathematical analysis of the impact of CO2 on earth's temperature.
2. Yes, this kind of thing is known on a large scale.
3. You can find such things on the web if you look.  
4. Science is done via PUBLICATION.  They publish their ideas then debate them.  I don't think there are any viable alternate theories still being debated in the last 20 years, but before then there were.

1. This is an assertion that needs to be proven, hence why I asked, 1kg of CO2 causes what effect? If its mathematical a unit of input must result in a unit of output.

2. No, I am looking for specific measurable data from 1kg of CO2 input to a unit of climate change output, not generalizations, this is part of the issue. 

3. University level, or experts? Again where are these debates today?

4. Can a scientist come out to the world with a view that society has minimal effect on climate change without loosing notability or funding? That was the question, if a scientist can not express a differing view why would we expect an alternative theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Winston said:

1. This is an assertion that needs to be proven, hence why I asked, 1kg of CO2 causes what effect? If its mathematical a unit of input must result in a unit of output.

2. No, I am looking for specific measurable data from 1kg of CO2 input to a unit of climate change output, not generalizations, this is part of the issue. 

3. University level, or experts? Again where are these debates today?

4. Can a scientist come out to the world with a view that society has minimal effect on climate change without loosing notability or funding?

5. That was the question, if a scientist can not express a differing view why would we expect an alternative theory?

1. What do you need to see ?  A graph of average temperatures over the last 30 years ?  Would that do it ?
2. Well those are small amounts but it is actually easier to show the effect in a lab.  If I linked to a lab experiment that shows the effect in a lab would that do ?
3. PhDs.  These debates were had in the literature, in the notes on the papers... more than 20 years ago.
4. The conclusion wouldn't cause them to lose credibility or funding, but how they got to the conclusion might.
5. They absolutely can if they can explain it.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. What do you need to see ?  A graph of average temperatures over the last 30 years ?  Would that do it ?
2. Well those are small amounts but it is actually easier to show the effect in a lab.  If I linked to a lab experiment that shows the effect in a lab would that do ?
3. PhDs.  These debates were had in the literature, in the notes on the papers... more than 20 years ago.
4. The conclusion wouldn't cause them to lose credibility or funding, but how they got to the conclusion might.
5. They absolutely can if they can explain it.
 

1. I would like to see exactly what 1 kg of CO2 does to 1 unit of climate change please. 

2. I am aware of the green house effect, my question is the exact measurable unit for unit outcomes this effect has on the globe. 

4. Give me an example of someone who is against man made climate change that had no credibility or funding lost?

5. It is not about explaining an alternative theory, it is about questioning the current theory. 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Winston said:

1. I would like to see exactly what 1 kg of CO2 does to 1 unit of climate change please. 

2. I am aware of the green house effect, my question is the exact measurable unit for unit outcomes this effect has on the globe. 

4. Give me an example of someone who is against man made climate change that had no credibility or funding lost?

5. It is not about explaining an alternative theory, it is about questioning the current theory. 

1. 2. It's measured in gigatonnes over time... which translate to ppm - parts per million.
5. Well THAT has been done plenty.  Really it's such an obvious relationship that there isn't much to question... the questions come in the form of which numbers are right, which factors impact the numbers more... not whether the whole thing is right or not.  We know the temperature is going up and CO2 levels are - and we know rising CO2 causes higher temperatures in the lab experiments so it's not far fetched at all - and if you reject that relationship then of course an alternative theory would be needed.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is, that if some super volcano should finally blow its top and throw tons and tons of ash into the atmosphere and block the sun, we will again be in the middle of another iceage and perhaps years without summers. The problem I see is that most of the so called "experts do not believe that the FLOOD of NOAH was a reality.  They do not wish to even consider that the environment has been changing for perhaps 10,000 years and not millions and billions. And so when there are any changes, it is assumed that it must be OUR fault. When the asteroid WORMWOOD finally hits the earth, there will be destroyed 1/3 of everything on this planet. YES, I firmly believe Christians need to be good stewards and recycle and be careful not to throw trash all over; however, as a Christian I realize that ultimately the LORD is in control and not me nor any government of any merit. 

Edited by LittleNipper
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

1. The reality is, that if some super volcano should finally blow its top and throw tons and tons of ash into the atmosphere and block the sun, we will again be in the middle of another iceage and perhaps years without summers.

2. The problem I see is that most of the so called "experts do not believe that the FLOOD of NOAH was a reality. 

3. They do not wish to even consider that the environment has been changing for perhaps 10,000 years and not millions and billions.

4. And so when there are any changes, it is assumed that it must be OUR fault.

5. When the asteroid WORMWOOD finally hits the earth, there will be destroyed 1/3 of everything on this planet. YES, I firmly believe Christians need to be good stewards and recycle and be careful not to throw trash all over; however, as a Christian I realize that ultimately the LORD is in control and not me nor any government of any merit. 

1. You say "the reality is" and then lay out an unlikely scenario that isn't actually happening right now.
2. How so ?  What 'experts' are you talking about ?  Many cultures have a flood narrative in their ancient stories.
3.  😂   
graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png?itok=Jgi

4. No, that's not how it works.  You haven't made the basic effort to read where the theory comes from.

5. Good for you.  I suspect that the percentage of people who think Climate Policy should be governed by religious principles is in the single digits.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. It's measured in gigatonnes over time... which translate to ppm - parts per million.
5. Well THAT has been done plenty.  Really it's such an obvious relationship that there isn't much to question... the questions come in the form of which numbers are right, which factors impact the numbers more... not whether the whole thing is right or not.  We know the temperature is going up and CO2 levels are - and we know rising CO2 causes higher temperatures in the lab experiments so it's not far fetched at all - and if you reject that relationship then of course an alternative theory would be needed.
 

Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You say "the reality is" and then lay out an unlikely scenario that isn't actually happening right now.
2. How so ?  What 'experts' are you talking about ?  Many cultures have a flood narrative in their ancient stories.
3.  😂   
graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png?itok=Jgi

4. No, that's not how it works.  You haven't made the basic effort to read where the theory comes from.

5. Good for you.  I suspect that the percentage of people who think Climate Policy should be governed by religious principles is in the single digits.

 

I'm going by their own (scientist) scenarios regarding the cause for the YEAR without a summer 1816, and for the little ice age of MIDDLE AGES and the end of the so-called "Age of Dino." In that case the earth (supposedly) all died out due to an asteroid.  The possiblity is certainly out there and might even occur as soon as 2029 ---- so what is not now could arrive in the near future. 

I do believe that the percentage of people who feel the government should govern "Climate Policy" is not much higher...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Winston said:

1. Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

2. If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

3. I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic. 

1. 2. One "tonne" (they us SI or Metric) won't do much at all.  It's miniscule at that scale.  It's measured in ppm or parts per million.  Climate Change is mostly measured in temperature change.

3. I recommend this YouTube channel run by a science journalist.  He always references the science and is very helpful to get amateurs like us to see through the smoke.
 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

1. I'm going by their own (scientist) scenarios regarding the cause for the YEAR without a summer 1816, and for the little ice age of MIDDLE AGES and the end of the so-called "Age of Dino." In that case the earth (supposedly) all died out due to an asteroid.  The possiblity is certainly out there and might even occur as soon as 2029 ---- so what is not now could arrive in the near future. 

2. I do believe that the percentage of people who feel the government should govern "Climate Policy" is not much higher...

1. An asteroid could hit the earth this year - what of it ? You didn't say how this possibility should change our thinking or actions or what it means.

2. Well - a quick American example says 2/3 of Americans think the government should do more on Climate
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. An asteroid could hit the earth this year - what of it ? You didn't say how this possibility should change our thinking or actions or what it means.

2. Well - a quick American example says 2/3 of Americans think the government should do more on Climate
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

Man contributes a total of about 12 PPM of the earth's CO2 in the atmosphere or 3%.  The other roughly 338 PPM of CO2 or 97% is natural.  Canada contributes about 0.18 PPM or 1.5% of man's contribution.  That is 1.5% of 12 PPM.  Negligible or next to nothing.  So tell me how is man the cause of climate change?  It has been likened to Canada throwing a cup of water into an Olympic-sized swimming pool.  It will make no difference.

Since scientists admit it is impossible to prove that man is causing excessive global warming because it cannot be repeated in a lab, why do you accept man is the cause?  Because somebody else says so or because a poll of people who have no proof and everyone thinks so because somebody else says so.  That's not science.  Popularity contests and polls are not science.  Neither is speculation science. 

Ask Winston. He says he is a scientist.  Winston, tell us if man-made climate change is speculation. or science.  If it is science, what is the proof?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the minds of many climate change leaders, climate change is not about saving the planet at all.

quote

Statements by the leaders of the climate change lobby show that the core issue is political/philosophical, rather than about saving the planet. For example:

The German economist and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) official Ottmar Edenhofer (that is, this is a mainstream view):

“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” (said in 201011)

For a non-mainstream view, we have Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden (2019):

“And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.”

He goes on to use neo-Marxist rhetoric criticising “heteronormativity”, “patriarchy”, “white supremacy”, and “class hierarchy”. He says XR is about fixing the system; that is, destroying Western society.12

Furthermore, there is an inconsistency between the ‘walk’ and the ‘talk’ about a ‘global’ concern. If the concern was truly about saving the planet from global warming due to human-generated CO2, surely the greatest sources of the CO2 should be the main target for the action? Then why, when China is the world’s largest CO2 producer, is no one protesting outside Chinese embassies? Australia (for example) contributes just 1.2% of the world’s emissions, and yet is a target for activism. Yet if its emissions disappeared completely (with Australia reduced to a pre-industrial age), it would not make a detectable difference in world CO2 levels.  unquote

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Winston said:

Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic. 

Has it been proven that man is the cause of global warming or excessive climate change?  What is the proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Winston said:

Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? 

I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic. 

quote  Nearly all of this GHG effect is due to water vapour, and only about 3.3°C is due to CO2. unquote

If 3.3C of global warming is due to CO2, and man contributes 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, is it reasonable to believe man changed that temperature by 3% of 3.3 C?  That seems insignificant.  So even if man could cut his GHG emissions in half, it would make practically no difference to the atmospheric temperature, correct?  That is, if we were able (which is unlikely) to reduce our man-made emissions from 3% of the atmospheric CO2 to 1.5%, that would equate to such a small change of temperature.  It would equate to 1.5% of 3.3 degrees C. That looks like 0.05 degrees C change.  Does that make sense?  So what would be the use of mankind destroying the economies of the world when it would make absolutely no difference to climate change.  A change in the order of 0.05 degrees C is nothing.

The article on this link says nearly all of the global warming is caused by water vapour, not CO2 as everyone has been led to believe by our political leaders and so-called experts.

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

.2. Well - a quick American example says 2/3 of Americans think the government should do more on Climate
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

"In the USA, the Global Warming Petition Project has garnered the signatures of some 31,500 scientists resident in the USA alone, including over 9,000 with PhDs, who dispute the claim that CO2 will cause serious problems.29 This alone casts serious doubt on the 97% figure.

The justification for ‘97%’ has been a 2013 paper that, based on the abstracts of nearly 12,000 climate science papers published from 1991 to 2011, concluded that 97% of those who expressed an opinion endorsed the consensus view that “humans are causing global warming”.30 Based on this, former President Obama’s twitter account declared, “Ninety seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Note how the paper’s claim morphed from humans are causing some global warming into all climate change is man-made and dangerous. This is deceitful (an activist group called Organising for Action posted the Tweet).

Moreover, the study was conducted by members of another activist group, Skeptical Science, which exists to promote public acceptance of AGW. When the raw data are examined, according to the authors’ own ratings, only 64 of the nearly 12,000 papers actually claimed that most of the warming is caused by human activity. In a follow-up analysis of the same papers, other researchers found that only 41 of those 64 papers endorsed the position that most of global warming was man-made.31 Taking into consideration that ⅔ of the papers expressed no view, that amounts to less than 1% of the papers that expressed a view. How did the authors get their 97%? They amalgamated all views that human-generated greenhouse gases are causing some warming. However, even most skeptics of the alarmism, including many who signed the Global Warming Petition (above) agree that human-generated CO2 causes some warming. This is a trivial finding.

The survey did not address the question of climate change being ‘dangerous’ or a ‘crisis’ or anything like that. Such claims are made by politicians and actors-cum-activists.

So, the 97% figure is a dishonest twisting of statistics, and the activists’ own raw data show that very few scientists agree even that most of the warming is due to human activity, let alone that it is dangerous.32"

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Yet the Greta Thunberg crew and millions of young people have been panicked into believing mankind is in some kind of climate crisis and if drastic action is not taken we are all doomed.  They have obviously been fed a false narrative by fear mongers such as Greta and politicians such as Obama, Trudeau, Elizabeth May's Green Party, environmental organizations, and many others and activists who are milking the issue for all it's worth.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of this is anything new. It was once predicted that we would run out of oil and that the population would force people to eat other people...  And yet strangely people don't seem to worry about that today ---- they worry about other things.

Edited by LittleNipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

None of this is anything new. It was once predicted that we would run out of oil and that the population would force people to eat other people...  And yet strangely people don't seem to worry about that today ---- they worry about other things.

Predicted by whom?  If you don't weight the validity of statements you won't make it out the door without following terrible advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...