5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

First don claiming there's no overlap between covid denial and climate change denial. And now an anti-mask antivaxer telling me I'm not doing enough to protect myself and my family from covid. I enjoy my time here. 

I'm vaxxed and I mask up in crowded places down here in Fla. - so what are you talking about?  Again, try and take some personal responsibility and educate yourself before vilifying others.

The bizarre thing is how people like yourself just ignore the treatment aspect.  Like it's of no importance whatsoever and completely irrelevant.  Never mind that people properly treated lose their ability to infect others much more quickly.  Your nonchalant attitude about treatment is incomprehensible if you ask me.

1 hour ago, PoconoDon said:

I get what you're saying. but again correlation does not equal causation. 

There are also studies that show the opposite. Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature changes both up and down by 600-1000 years. Temp first, CO2 second. Seems like temperature change would drive the correlation more.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

Dude, that page literally talks about CO2 lag being a myth.

It links to another page discussing the Shakun study I posted which explains why Antarctic core samples show a lag effect: https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Look at the red tabbed area. It literally says "Climate Myth... CO2 lags temperature"

And again, to match this effect that's discussed - which can happen - around orbital and sun intensity causing a warming period that warms oceans sufficiently to cause release of CO2 (which then causes additional warning BTW), we would need a sustained warm period of hundreds of years caused by these effects. 

Which we don't have.

So yes, there's a lot of reasons other than CO2 that can cause warming. But none of those are present at the same time we've nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This just amounts to a lot of fishing for reasons OTHER than the one that all of the science points to, because that particular reason isn't the one that is easiest to dismiss or deal with. 

30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

First don claiming there's no overlap between covid denial and climate change denial. And now an anti-mask antivaxer telling me I'm not doing enough to protect myself and my family from covid. I enjoy my time here. 

First of all, you were the one who initially brought up Covid-19 in this climate thread, as if that separate subject matters here. It does not. You apparently want to slap a "denier" label, whatever that means, on everyone who disagrees with you on anything. That's a child's approach, and you are not a child. Let's not conflate the two issues and have a grown up discussion about climate concerns. If you think humans control the climate, then I'd ask you to what extent exactly? 

 

3 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

First of all, you were the one who initially brought up Covid-19 in this climate thread, as if that separate subject matters here. It does not. You apparently want to slap a "denier" label, whatever that means, on everyone who disagrees with you on anything. That's a child's approach, and you are not a child. Let's not conflate the two issues and have a grown up discussion about climate concerns. If you think humans control the climate, then I'd ask you to what extent exactly? 

 

There are 3 components to the discussion. Are humans causing climate change? If so, how severe is it? And then what, if anything, should we do about it?

We can't get past the first question, so there's no real debate to be had. If you can't see the parallels to how we've handled covid as a society over the past 20 months then I'm guessing there's a reason for that.

54 minutes ago, Procus said:

I'm vaxxed and I mask up in crowded places down here in Fla. - so what are you talking about?  Again, try and take some personal responsibility and educate yourself before vilifying others.

The bizarre thing is how people like yourself just ignore the treatment aspect.  Like it's of no importance whatsoever and completely irrelevant.  Never mind that people properly treated lose their ability to infect others much more quickly.  Your nonchalant attitude about treatment is incomprehensible if you ask me.

We all saw you trip over yourself in the vaccine thread in Tate. Don't backpedal now and pretend you've been pro-vax the whole time.

10 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

We all saw you trip over yourself in the vaccine thread in Tate. Don't backpedal now and pretend you've been pro-vax the whole time.

Dude - I'm pro choice.  I held on vaccines for a while because of Meniere's.  I got vaccinated recently, although I have my reservations and some regrets after seeing how the goal posts have been pushed back and seeing so many vaccinated people getting sick after we were told it would prevent infection, and now we're being told it is more therapeutic.

You're being ignorant by ignore treatment - especially under these circumstances.  You have no response to what I said about treatment but instead simply choose to attack the messenger.  There simply is no logic for ignoring that aspect, so you have no credibility.

Just now, Procus said:

Dude - I'm pro choice.  I held on vaccines for a while because of Meniere's.  I got vaccinated recently.

You're being a putz if you ignore treatment.  You have no response to what I said about treatment but instead simply choose to attack the messenger.  There simply is no logic for ignoring that aspect, so you have no credibility.

ya I bet

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

ya I bet

And there you go, still no response to treatment, so I guess you're anti-treatment options since they're being touted by people who disagree with your politics.  What an ignoramus.

21 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Dude, that page literally talks about CO2 lag being a myth.

It links to another page discussing the Shakun study I posted which explains why Antarctic core samples show a lag effect: https://skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Look at the red tabbed area. It literally says "Climate Myth... CO2 lags temperature"

And again, to match this effect that's discussed - which can happen - around orbital and sun intensity causing a warming period that warms oceans sufficiently to cause release of CO2 (which then causes additional warning BTW), we would need a sustained warm period of hundreds of years caused by these effects. 

Which we don't have.

So yes, there's a lot of reasons other than CO2 that can cause warming. But none of those are present at the same time we've nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This just amounts to a lot of fishing for reasons OTHER than the one that all of the science points to, because that particular reason isn't the one that is easiest to dismiss or deal with. 

Again, the original rise in temperature, as I understand it, is being attributed to the Malinkovic cycle (orbital change). That triggered the release of CO2 from the southern ocean(s), which then contributed to additional warming from higher CO2 concentrations. Since they cannot attribute the move to an interglacial period entirely to orbital change, they've settled on a CO2 positive feedback loop as the explanation.  I'm not saying that they are wrong. I am saying that I see no calculation that shows precisely the extent of that warming solely attributable to CO2 which would solidify their claim. That's the issue for me, because of the implications such a void of knowledge creates.

Also, if there was a CO2 positive feedback loop, what interrupted it? Why isn't it still going strong? Why isn't it accelerating as one might expect? Are there more powerful external forces actually driving the climate changes? Would 10 times the CO2 in our atmosphere prevent an ice age? It hasn't in the past. I'm certainly no climate expert or scientist, but I am hesitant to commit a rush to judgment when so many questions still linger. Climate change is real, always ongoing, and to my mind, driven by forces we can't fully explain with accuracy or precision. If future study proves the main player is CO2, then I'll get on board. Until then, I'll wait for additional evidence to come to light.

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

And there you go, still no response to treatment, so I guess you're anti-treatment options since they're being touted by people who disagree with your politics.  What an ignoramus.

Should I take a page out of your book and start talking about how dangerous treatment is, how it doesn't really work, how doctors shouldn't push it on everyone, etc? 

Nah, you can discuss treatment all you want, that's fine. Some are better than others, though, so if I make fun of idiots taking ivermectin instead of more proven methods like mAbs and dexamethasone, it's not because I'm "ignoring" treatment options. It's because I'm not an antivax moron like you.

24 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

There are 3 components to the discussion. Are humans causing climate change? If so, how severe is it? And then what, if anything, should we do about it?

We can't get past the first question, so there's no real debate to be had. If you can't see the parallels to how we've handled covid as a society over the past 20 months then I'm guessing there's a reason for that.

Then doesn't it seem imprudent and even a little stupid to rush headlong towards an imaginary solution, when we don't know if the problem it solves even exists? I for one won't deride a person for having meaningful questions that the experts can't answer.

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Should I take a page out of your book and start talking about how dangerous treatment is, how it doesn't really work, how doctors shouldn't push it on everyone, etc?

No - you should do your own independent research.  Your guy Fauci touts it.  Is he acceptable to you?

https://nypost.com/2021/08/24/fauci-early-use-of-monoclonal-antibodies-can-reduce-hospitalization-death/

Fauci: Early use of monoclonal antibodies can cut risk of hospitalization, death up to 85%

By

Jackie Salo

August 24, 2021 5:23pm

Updated

COVID-19 sufferers can reduce their risk of hospitalization and death by up to 85 percent if they receive monoclonal antibody treatments in the early stages of their illness, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday.

The White House chief medical adviser said that using the lab-made antibodies to fight the virus before a patient is hospitalized can prevent the chances of severe illness by between 70 and 85 percent.

"It is important to emphasize that this must be done early in infection and not wait, of course, until a person is sick enough to be hospitalized,” Fauci said at a COVID-19 press briefing.

"That’s when you get the best effect. And again, being an underutilized intervention, we want people out there, including physicians as well as potential patients, to realize the advantage of this very effective way of treating early infection.”

Dr. Fauci said giving monoclonal antibody treatments can reduce a patient’s chance of severe illness by between 70 and 85 percent. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, Pool

Fauci said the treatment could significantly benefit certain at-risk groups, such as those over the age of 65, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.

"Bottom line is this is a very effective intervention for COVID-19. It is underutilized, and we recommend strongly that we utilize this to its fullest,” Fauci said.

As for Ivermectin, it's been on the market as a safe drug for years.  But all of a sudden, it's dangerous, while reactions to vaccines are acceptable dangers.  In India, it stemmed the spread of the Delta variant significantly.  What's your plan if you get infected despite being vaccinated?

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-blackout/article_e3db8f46-f942-11eb-9eea-77d5e2519364.html

India's Ivermectin Blackout

By Justus R. Hope, MD

Aug 9, 2021 Updated Aug 13, 2021

News of India's defeat of the Delta variant should be common knowledge. It is just about as obvious as the nose on one's face. It is so clear when one looks at the graphs that no one can deny it.

Yet, for some reason, we are not allowed to talk about it. Thus, for example, Wikipedia cannot mention the peer-reviewed meta-analyses by Dr. Tess Lawrie or Dr. Pierre Kory published in the American Journal of Therapeutics.  

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pint-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html

Wikipedia is not allowed to publish the recent meta-analysis on Ivermectin authored by Dr. Andrew Hill. Furthermore, it is not allowed to say anything concerning www.ivmmeta.com showing the 61 studies comprising 23,000 patients which reveal up to a 96% reduction in death [prophylaxis] with Ivermectin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvermectin

One can see the bias in Wikipedia by going on the "talk" pages for each subject and reading about the fierce attempts of editors to add these facts and the stone wall refusals by the "senior" editors who have an agenda. And that agenda is not loyalty to your health.

The easy way to read the "talk” page on any Wikipedia subject is to click the top left "talk” button. Anyone can then review the editors’ discussions.

There is a blackout on any conversation about how Ivermectin beat COVID-19 in India. When I discussed the dire straits that India found itself in early this year with 414,000 cases per day, and over 4,000 deaths per day, and how that evaporated within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin, I am often asked, "But why is there no mention of that in the news?"

Yes, exactly. Ask yourself why India’s success against the Delta variant with Ivermectin is such a closely guarded secret by the NIH and CDC. Second, ask yourself why no major media outlets reported this fact, but instead, tried to confuse you with false information by saying the deaths in India are 10 times greater than official reports.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/20/1018438334/indias-pandemic-death-toll-estimated-at-about-4-million-10-times-the-official-co

Perhaps NPR is trying so hard because NPR is essentially a government mouthpiece. The US government is "all-in” with vaccines with the enthusiasm of a 17th century Catholic Church "all-in” with a Geocentric Model of the Universe disputing Galileo. Claiming that India’s numbers are inaccurate might distract from the overwhelming success of Ivermectin.

But in the end, the truth matters. It mattered in 1616, and it matters in 2021.

The graphs and data from the Johns Hopkins University CSSE database do not lie. On the contrary, they provide a compelling trail of truth that no one can dispute, not even the NIH, CDC, FDA, and WHO.

Just as Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe in 1616; today, the data from India shows that Ivermectin is effective, much more so than the vaccines. It not only prevents death, but it also prevents COVID infections, and it also is effective against the Delta Variant.

In 1616, you could not make up the telescopic images of Jupiter and its orbiting moons, nor could you falsify the crescent-shaped images of Venus and Mercury. These proved that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe – a truth the Catholic Church could not allow.

Likewise, the massive drop in cases and deaths in India to almost nothing after the addition of Ivermectin proved the drug's effectiveness. This is a truth that the NIH, CDC, and FDA cannot allow because it would endanger the vaccine policy.

Never mind that Ivermectin would save more lives with much less risk, much less cost, and it would end the pandemic quickly.

Let us look at the burgundy-colored graph of Uttar Pradesh. First, allow me to thank Juan Chamie, a highly-respected Cambridge-based data analyst, who created this graph from the JHU CSSE data. Uttar Pradesh is a state in India that contains 241 million people. The United States’ population is 331 million people. Therefore, Uttar Pradesh can be compared to the United States, with 2/3 of our population size.

This data shows how Ivermectin knocked their COVID-19 cases and deaths - which we know were Delta Variant - down to almost zero within weeks. A population comparable to the US went from about 35,000 cases and 350 deaths per day to nearly ZERO within weeks of adding Ivermectin to their protocol.

By comparison, the United States is the lower graph. On August 5, here in the good ol’ USA, blessed with the glorious vaccines, we have 127,108 new cases per day and 574 new deaths. 

Let us look at the August 5 numbers from Uttar Pradesh with 2/3 of our population. Uttar Pradesh, using Ivermectin, had a total of 26 new cases and exactly THREE deaths. The US without Ivermectin has precisely 4889 times as many daily cases and 191 times as many deaths as Uttar Pradesh with Ivermectin.

It is not even close. Countries do orders of magnitude better WITH Ivermectin. It might be comparable to the difference in travel between using an automobile versus a horse and buggy.

Uttar Pradesh on Ivermectin:  Population 240 Million [4.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 26

COVID Daily Deaths: 3

The United States off Ivermectin: Population 331 Million [50.5% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 127,108

COVID Daily Deaths: 574

Let us look at other Ivermectin using areas of India with numbers from August 5, 2021, compiled by the JHU CSSE:

Delhi on Ivermectin: Population 31 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 61

COVID Daily Deaths: 2

Uttarakhand on Ivermectin: Population 11.4 Million [15% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 24

COVID Daily Deaths: 0

Now let us look at an area of India that rejected Ivermectin. 

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/tn-drops-ivermectin-as-covid-19-drug/article34561235.ece

Tamil Nadu announced they would reject Ivermectin and instead follow the dubious USA-style guidance of using Remdesivir. Knowing this, you might expect their numbers to be closer to the US, with more cases and more deaths. You would be correct. Tamil Nadu went on to lead India in COVID-19 cases.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/tamil-nadu-leads-india-in-new-infections-denies-citizens-ivermectin/article_32634012-ba66-11eb-9211-ab378d521f9a.html

Tamil Nadu continues to suffer for its choice to reject Ivermectin. As a result, the Delta variant continues to ravage their citizens while it was virtually wiped out in the Ivermectin-using states. Likewise, in the United States, without Ivermectin, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated continue to spread the Delta variant like wildfire.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html

Tamil Nadu off Ivermectin: Population 78.8 Million [6.9% fully vaccinated]

COVID Daily Cases: 1,997

COVID Daily Deaths: 33

Like the JHU CSSE data, Galileo's telescope did not lie either, and the truth can usually be found in plain sight. Ivermectin works, and it works exceedingly well. Harvard-trained virologist Dr. George Fareed and his associate, Dr. Brian Tyson of California's Imperial Valley, have saved 99.9% of their patients with a COVID Cocktail that includes Ivermectin. They have released versions of their new book published in the Desert Review that everyone should read.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/doctors-story-of-light-and-life-the-covid-19-darkness-overcome-part-i/article_5ae16f0c-f614-11eb-8351-cf0d67e94c25.html

I could talk about how every one of my patients who used Ivermectin recovered rapidly, about my most recent case who felt 90% better within 48 hours of adding the drug, but I won't. I could write about how Wikipedia censors more than Pravda, about how you should always read the "talk" section of EVERY Wikipedia article to go behind the scenes and understand what the editors DO NOT want you to read, but I will refrain.

I could write about VAERS and how it is so much easier to navigate by following Open VAERS or how Wikipedia has unfairly portrayed Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the world's sharpest and most credible doctors. But I will hold back.

https://www.openvaers.com/

I could also discuss our current cancer treatment system's dangers and how chemotherapy and radiation stimulate cancer stem cells and cancer recurrence. About how this information has been suppressed and how the addition of repurposed drug cocktails can help prevent this, but I digress.

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Cancer-COVID-19-Disease-Repurposed/dp/0998055425

I could recite the history of early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with repurposed drugs, including Ivermectin, with all the specifics, and EXACTLY WHY this lifesaving information has been censored, but instead, I will leave researching these topics to each of you readers as individuals. 

https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-World-Justus-R-Hope/dp/1737415909

Because you already know what will happen if you simply sit back and swallow what the media are feeding you. You MUST question what the government tells you, and always DO YOUR OWN research.

Following the 1616 Inquisition of Galileo, the Pope banned all books and letters that argued the sun was the center of the Universe instead of the Earth. Similarly, today, the FDA and WHO have banned any use of Ivermectin for COVID outside of a clinical trial.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

YouTube and Wikipedia both consider Ivermectin for COVID as heresy.

"YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19… Treatment misinformation: claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19.”

Wikipedia defines heresy as:  "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization. The term is usually used in reference to violations of important religious teachings, but is also used of views strongly opposed to any generally accepted ideas. A heretic is a proponent of heresy.”

Heresy is disagreeing with the government, or their health authority, even if they are all wrong and even if their policies harm people. Today we no longer call it heresy; it is labeled as misinformation.

Galileo was found guilty of heresy and sentenced on June 22, 1633, to formal imprisonment, although this was commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life.

On August 7, 2021 Medpage Today published a new quiz, "Can COVID Misinformation Cost You Your Medical License?”

38 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Then doesn't it seem imprudent and even a little stupid to rush headlong towards an imaginary solution, when we don't know if the problem it solves even exists? I for one won't deride a person for having meaningful questions that the experts can't answer.

When I say we can't get past it, it's not for a lack of science, it's for a lack of intellect by half of the country. The scientific consensus on this isn't ambiguous, just as it's not ambiguous on how big of a problem covid is despite some politicians best efforts to downplay it as much as possible. 

32 minutes ago, Procus said:

But all of a sudden, it's dangerous, while reactions to vaccines are acceptable dangers

^Words from totally not an antivaxer. 

"I'm not antivax but..." is basically the new "I'm not a trump supporter but..."

Except that by the time India started pushing Ivermectin (and only in a couple states did it really take hold) the peak had already passed.

And a month later those states that were pushing and defending use of Ivermectin pulled them from the home isolation kids they were distributing. 

Justus R. Hope, MD isn't even an actual person. It's a pen-name. 

Ultimately it is preposterous to me that if the actual evidence was convincing (and it is not) that Ivermectin is effective, that it wouldn't be getting EUA. Even the company that manufactures Ivermectin - Merck - has taken a hard stance against its use against COVID. Studies that show efficacy have been problematic - either the sample size was tiny or the methodology was off. Some were withdrawn entirely: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

Follow up studies on Ivermectin, which is warranted given that there was SOME evidence of its efficacy, have largely failed to produce similar results. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ivermectin-still-lacks-scientific-support-as-a-covid-19-drug-69049

38 minutes ago, Procus said:

Your guy Fauci touts it.  Is he acceptable to you?

You're as bad at reading as you are at science.

I already said "so if I make fun of idiots taking ivermectin instead of more proven methods like mAbs and dexamethasone, it's not because I'm "ignoring" treatment options. It's because I'm not an antivax moron like you."

 

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You're as bad at reading as you are at science.

I already said "so if I make fun of idiots taking ivermectin instead of more proven methods like mAbs and dexamethasone, it's not because I'm "ignoring" treatment options. It's because I'm not an antivax moron like you."

Have a wonderful day.

48 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

When I say we can't get past it, it's not for a lack of science, it's for a lack of intellect by half of the country. The scientific consensus on this isn't ambiguous, just as it's not ambiguous on how big of a problem covid is despite some politicians best efforts to downplay it as much as possible. 

Science isn't achieved by consensus. That's antithetical to the scientific method. Find me where the science has determined the precise % impact humans are having or CO2 is having for that matter on climate change. You can't and neither can I, because the experts studying it don't know.  The most important and very first question remains unanswered. That's why we can't get past it. 

I don't equate questions about the impact of CO2 to the anti-vax movement. They are two different worlds in my opinion. 

55 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Science isn't achieved by consensus. That's antithetical to the scientific method. Find me where the science has determined the precise % impact humans are having or CO2 is having for that matter on climate change. You can't and neither can I, because the experts studying it don't know.  The most important and very first question remains unanswered. That's why we can't get past it. 

I don't equate questions about the impact of CO2 to the anti-vax movement. They are two different worlds in my opinion. 

ya and 95% of doctors are vaccinated, but sure, let's ignore that and instead pretend that when an overwhelming majority of experts are in agreement that it means nothing

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

Science isn't achieved by consensus. That's antithetical to the scientific method. Find me where the science has determined the precise % impact humans are having or CO2 is having for that matter on climate change. You can't and neither can I, because the experts studying it don't know.  The most important and very first question remains unanswered. That's why we can't get past it. 

I don't equate questions about the impact of CO2 to the anti-vax movement. They are two different worlds in my opinion. 

You're constructing an impossible standard to avoid having to "get past it". 

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

You're constructing an impossible standard to avoid having to "get past it". 

No I'm not. I want to get past it. I'm just not on board with throwing trillions of dollars at a problem that may not be a problem worth throwing that money at. More research is needed because they can't answer the most basic question(s) on the subject. I know it's a complex issue but a rush to judgment isn't a good strategy for resolving it, if we even can.

4 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

First of all, you were the one who initially brought up Covid-19 in this climate thread, as if that separate subject matters here. It does not. You apparently want to slap a "denier" label, whatever that means, on everyone who disagrees with you on anything. That's a child's approach, and you are not a child. Let's not conflate the two issues and have a grown up discussion about climate concerns. If you think humans control the climate, then I'd ask you to what extent exactly?

 

My contribution looks like this 

1 minute ago, PoconoDon said:

No I'm not. I want to get past it. I'm just not on board with throwing trillions of dollars at a problem that may not be a problem worth throwing that money at. More research is needed because they can't answer the most basic question(s) on the subject. I know it's a complex issue but a rush to judgment isn't a good strategy for resolving it, if we even can.

They HAVE answered it. 

Climate skeptics et al. don't like the answer.

It's like the OJ case. There's a preponderance of evidence pointing to his guilt, but hey this one glove over here don't quite fit so NOT GUILTY.

 

1 hour ago, DBW said:

My contribution looks like this 

You seriously need to consider moving to Florida.