So is totse.info...

13»

Comments

  • HTS-NoobHTS-Noob Regular
    edited February 2011
    Those are some very well thought out rants and all, but I'm still getting laid and having fun. I fail to see the issue. If she fucks around, dumps me or whatever, then I find another one? Rinse repeat til one sticks? That's how life goes.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited February 2011
    HTS-Noob wrote: »
    Those are some very well thought out rants and all, but I'm still getting laid and having fun. I fail to see the issue. If she fucks around, dumps me or whatever, then I find another one? Rinse repeat til one sticks? That's how life goes.

    STFU we stopped talking about you ITT somewhere in the middle of page two.
  • fr0st_Bytefr0st_Byte Sumpin' c00L
    edited February 2011
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    Yep, my description of you was right; "grunt".

    Location: knee deep in pussy

    There's a reason women are intimidated by intelligence and go for dumbasses; that's because they're easier to manipulate and get something out of. How pathetic it is that you put so much emphasis on "getting laid" that you even put it as your location. I'm sure it really isn't as often as you want us to believe, but it'd make sense as to why you're so stupid that the most simple activity in the world is what defines you.

    How does it make you feel, now knowing your life and what it revolves around is so mundane and mediocre, not to mention your lack of intelligence?

    Dude she is a chick. And a pretty hot one at that. I've got the pics. :eek:
  • HTS-NoobHTS-Noob Regular
    edited February 2011
    STFU we stopped talking about you ITT somewhere in the middle of page two.

    Not true. EVERYTHING IS ABOUT ME
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited February 2011
    HTS-Noob wrote: »
    Not true. EVERYTHING IS ABOUT ME

    Yeah,we figured that out a long time ago. Do you have any new information?
  • ScuDScuD Regular
    edited February 2011
    im still waiting on better link to the girls ass
  • BigHarryDickBigHarryDick Cock Bite
    edited February 2011
  • IndulgenceIndulgence Regular
    edited February 2011
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    huge rant; lots of biological terms therefore I'm right

    HAHAHA I just checked this thread now. Your Gaussian curve sounds nice and all except a) you can't provide a source, b) your logic is flawed and c) you genuinely have nothing better to do than to type short essays and insult strangers on the internet. Get a life man.

    Also, intelligence is fucking hot. Not sure how you came to the determination that women are intimidated by intelligence.
  • Malcolm XMalcolm X Regular
    edited February 2011
    because he's never talked to a woman..
  • ScuDScuD Regular
    edited February 2011
    Malcolm X wrote: »
    because he's never talked to a woman..

    118hlec.jpg
  • TSAoDTSAoD Regular
    edited February 2011
    Malcolm X wrote: »
    because he's never talked to a woman..

    who ??
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited February 2011
    Indulgence wrote: »
    HAHAHA I just checked this thread now. Your Gaussian curve sounds nice and all except a) you can't provide a source, b) your logic is flawed and c) you genuinely have nothing better to do than to type short essays and insult strangers on the internet. Get a life man.

    Also, intelligence is fucking hot. Not sure how you came to the determination that women are intimidated by intelligence.

    Funny you have nothing to counteract with, yet my logic is flawed :rolleyes: It's not my fault you've no idea how a gaussian curve works.

    Darwin, 1874: 340-345; Moir & Jessel, 1989: 89; Wilson, 1989: 107-108; all of these sources also show that males vary more than females.

    As for point C. it takes very little time for me to share some knowledge that I know, and the fact that you liken it to a mini essay just shows how low your reading level actually is. As for insults, you're the one who began insulting me, so if you can't take getting insulted back then just stay in the kitchen, cook and keep your stupid OPINIONS to yourself. of course women are intimidated by intelligence, I don't see male geniuses in high demands by the ladies or holding harems of women. I've refuted and made people much like yourself look foolish every single time they come at me with some predictable emancipated reply.

    "Malcolm X", no one cares what you think, nigger. Malcolm X was a somewhat respectable black; you're an intellectually lazy, pea brained chimp who likely doesn't get much sexual activity as you'd like everyone to believe (not that it even matters). Just shows what an effeminate, superficial and hostile moron you really are. It just strikes me as funny that an ignorant bootlip like you would use that username.
  • IndulgenceIndulgence Regular
    edited February 2011
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    Funny you have nothing to counteract with, yet my logic is flawed :rolleyes: It's not my fault you've no idea how a gaussian curve works.

    Darwin, 1874: 340-345; Moir & Jessel, 1989: 89; Wilson, 1989: 107-108; all of these sources also show that males vary more than females.

    As for point C. it takes very little time for me to share some knowledge that I know, and the fact that you liken it to a mini essay just shows how low your reading level actually is. As for insults, you're the one who began insulting me, so if you can't take getting insulted back then just stay in the kitchen, cook and keep your stupid OPINIONS to yourself. of course women are intimidated by intelligence, I don't see male geniuses in high demands by the ladies or holding harems of women. I've refuted and made people much like yourself look foolish every single time they come at me with some predictable emancipated reply.

    Alright, I'll bite.

    Yes, there are biological and neurological differences between the sexes. This is obvious. I googled your sources and found references to them but not the exact source (if you can supply one I would be happy to read it), so I found my own. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html#p41

    This debate shows that while men and women vary in many areas, they are also similar or the same in many others. There are areas in which men have an advantage, and areas where women have an advantage. Here are a few passages supporting this, spoiler tags because it's long as hell:
    Okay, so what are the similarities and differences between the sexes? There certainly are many similarities. Men and women show no differences in general intelligence or g — on average, they are exactly the same, right on the money. Also, when it comes to the basic categories of cognition — how we negotiate the world and live our lives; our concept of objects, of numbers, of people, of living things, and so on — there are no differences.

    Indeed, in cases where there are differences, there are as many instances in which women do slightly better than men as ones in which men do slightly better than women. For example, men are better at throwing, but women are more dexterous. Men are better at mentally rotating shapes; women are better at visual memory. Men are better at mathematical problem-solving; women are better at mathematical calculation. And so on.

    Just one example. In a famous long-term study of mathematically precocious youth, 1,975 youngsters were selected in 7th grade for being in the top 1% of ability in mathematics, and then followed up for more than two decades. These men and women are certainly equally talented. And if anyone has ever been encouraged in math and science, these kids were. Both genders: they are equal in their levels of achievement, and they report being equally satisfied with the course of their lives. Nonetheless there are statistical differences in what they say is important to them. There are some things in life that the females rated higher than males, such as the ability to have a part-time career for a limited time in one's life; living close to parents and relatives; having a meaningful spiritual life; and having strong friendships. And there are some things in life that the males rated higher than the females. They include having lots of money; inventing or creating something; having a full-time career; and being successful in one's line of work. It's worth noting that studies of highly successful people find that single-mindedness and competitiveness are recurring traits in geniuses (of both sexes).

    Third, risk. Men are by far the more reckless sex. In a large meta-analysis involving 150 studies and 100,000 participants, in 14 out of 16 categories of risk-taking, men were over-represented. The two sexes were equally represented in the other two categories, one of which was smoking, for obvious reasons. And two of the largest sex differences were in "intellectual risk taking" and "participation in a risky experiment." We see this sex difference in everyday life, in particular, in the following category: the Darwin Awards, "commemorating those individuals who ensure the long-term survival of our species by removing themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion." Virtually all — perhaps all — of the winners are men.

    Now the fact that these six gender differences exist does not mean that they are innate. This of course is a much more difficult issue to resolve. A necessary preamble to this discussion is that nature and nurture are not alternatives; it is possible that the explanation for a given sex difference involves some of each. The only issue is whether the contribution of biology is greater than zero. I think that there are ten kinds of evidence that the contribution of biology is greater than zero, though of course it is nowhere near 100 percent.

    This is by no means the entire debate; read it for yourself. Your logic is flawed because the differences between the sexes do not indicate that one is superior than the other, and many of the things you listed as men being better at are subjective. From your first post: "It's no coincidence that men make better comedians and there are more of them," Not going to argue with that, but it's not indicative of superiority. I know plenty of witty, hilarious women.

    "male inventors, more criminals masterminds and better criminals than women." Maybe there are more male inventors because until fairly recently in history, women have been shunned from anything involving the sciences and mathematics. How exactly is being a criminal a redeeming trait...? Yes, I know you're going to reply with "because it means that men are more intelligent blah blah blah." Except there's little to no indication (from what I've gathered) of one gender being more intelligent than the other.

    "More daredevils and stuntmen" Yes, men are the more reckless gender. So what? "Basically there's more male eccentrics than women;" Source?
    "more men with high levels of creativity than women;" Source?
    "more males with better athletic ability than women;" There are many female athletes, and yes men are physically built to have greater physical ability. So what? There are probably just as many if not more fatass, lazy men than there are male athletes. Does this prove anything? No. "more men with a much greater sense of humour than women," Subjective. "and the list goes on and on and on." Does it?

    "of course women are intimidated by intelligence, I don't see male geniuses in high demands by the ladies or holding harems of women." Purely anecdotal and proves nothing. You're making a connection where none exists. You are saying "I don't see X happening, therefore Y must be true." This is fallacious. Many men choose to date and/or have sex with empty-headed skanks; does this mean that men are intimidated by intelligence?

    Anyway you're probably a troll but I felt compelled to respond.
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited February 2011
    Men weren't encouraged either, they just shovelled the fucking gravel.

    Let's just use mathematics as an example first and foremost. If we just for a second count out a biological basis for womens incompetence in mathematics; women should have made the most successful mathematicians, if you considering how much leisure time females always had (and still do to a great degree). But we see that the opposite is true and it is a genetic basis for the continuing female inability to solve mathematical equations. It is to do with exposure to prenatal testosterone in the womb today:
    A quick look at the lengths of children's index and ring fingers can be used to predict how well students will perform on SATs, new research claims.

    Kids with longer ring fingers compared to index fingers are likely to have higher math scores than literacy or verbal scores on the college entrance exam, while children with the reverse finger-length ratio are likely to have higher reading and writing, or verbal, scores versus math scores.

    Scientists have known that different levels of the hormones testosterone and estrogen in the womb account for the different finger lengths, which are a reflection of areas of the brain that are more highly developed than others, said psychologist Mark Brosnan of the University of Bath, who led the study.

    Exposure to testosterone in the womb is said to promote development of areas of the brain often associated with spatial and mathematical skills, he said. That hormone makes the ring finger longer. Estrogen exposure does the same for areas of the brain associated with verbal ability and tends to lengthen the index finger relative to the ring finger.

    To test the link to children's scores on the College Board's Scholastic Assessment Test (for which the name has changed a number of times in the past 100 years), Brosnan and his colleagues made photocopies of children's palms and measured the length of their index and ring fingers using calipers accurate to 0.01 millimeters. They used the finger-length ratios as a proxy for the levels of testosterone and estrogen exposure.

    The researchers then looked at boys' and girls' test performances separately and compared them to finger-length ratio measurements. They found a clear link between high prenatal testosterone exposure, indicated by the longer ring finger compared to the index finger, and higher scores on the math SAT.


    Similarly, they found higher literacy SAT scores for the girls among those who had lower prenatal testosterone exposure, as indicated by a shorter ring finger compared with the index finger.

    The researchers also compared the finger-lengths ratios to all the children's SAT scores and found that a relatively longer ring finger—indicating greater prenatal exposure to testosterone—meant a wider gap in scores for math versus literacy (writing and critical reading).

    "Finger ratio provides us with an interesting insight into our innate abilities in key cognitive areas," Brosnan said, in a prepared statement. The results will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the British Journal of Psychology.

    In the future, his team will see if finger-length ratios are related to other cognitive and behavioral issues, such as technophobia, career paths and possibly dyslexia.
    http://www.livescience.com/health/070522_finger_sats.html

    See also this:
    A great deal of recent research has focused upon the relationship between a hypothesized index of prenatal testosterone exposure, digit ratio and health, social and cognitive functioning. Many inconsistencies within the pattern of findings have been identified in the relationship between digit ratio and absolute levels of cognitive ability. Recent research has identified a relationship between digit ratio and basic numeric competency. This basic numerical competency has been argued to be influenced by biological factors. The present study extended this finding to academic assessment, namely the Standardized Assessment Tests undertaken in numeracy and literacy by children in the UK at the age of 7. The present study hypothesized that digit ratio would correlate with the relative difference between numeracy and literacy abilities. Digit ratios were calculated for 75 (mainly Caucasian) children aged between 6 and 7 attending a state funded infant school. The digit ratios were then correlated with the results from their National Standard Assessment Tests (SATs). A significant correlation was found as hypothesized. Additionally, there was a negative correlation between digit ratio and numeracy for males (indicating higher prenatal testosterone exposure related to higher numeracy SAT scores) and a positive correlation between digit ratio and literacy for females (indicating lower prenatal testosterone exposure related to higher literacy SAT scores). These effects were small and the implications for using digit ratio to facilitate understanding of hormonal influences upon academic attainment are discussed.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17535470

    As I said earlier women have had more opportunities to develop their mathematical abilities than men, who were more often being slogged to death as slaves or busy fighting wars. Women have produced pretty much nothing in comparison to men; even males born in poverty and poor circumstances achieve(d) more than any woman with plenty of lounging time.

    The bullshit that women weren't encouraged and were oppressed in the past is absolute bullshit. Women wouldn't know real oppression if it came and slapped them across their scheming face. they had everything they needed (some women were infact against the idea of women having the vote and rightfully so). Men have been ridiculed, exiled, tortured and killed ontop of having the fear of just that, for science and philosophy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippasus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

    They should be forever greatful to us for this and if anything, worship males because of this.

    And that's just five examples. The fact of the matter is women aren't critical thinkers and are deeply inferior in subjects that matter like mathematics, science and anything else really. They get by easier just by lying on their back. It's been shown in a study that women with low IQs (so this means the vast majority) also are more likely to go for richer males.


    If anything women have oppressed each other more than men have oppressed women. Women were content and happy with their role and position

    I'm of the reasonable and logical idea that any "nice girl" won't be offended by anything a man says, no matter how misogynistic or "hurtful", especially when reasons and examples are always given for the hatred of females and their characteristics- often scientific, as well as being commonly accessable stuff that we've all experienced. The female design is designed around parasitism. She'd have to go against her inherant physiological design, such as not using her appearance to act all sweet and innocent to fool males into trusting her, and then turning him into her slave and being a complete fucking bitch. Accept the scientifical and common sensed fact that females are weaker and intellectually inferior, which is one of the reasons why females have not produced anything much of worth mentioning other than bringing to light that they thrive on and bring misery and degradation of the morale of great men. Everything great in the world and everything they use and have was fought for or created by males. And don't give me that oppression bullshit, because they wouldn't know true oppression if it came and slapped them in the face, they had everything they needed (some women were infact against the idea of women having the vote and rightfully so). Men have been ridiculed, exiled, tortured and killed ontop of having the fear of just that, for science and philosophy.

    In terms of intelligence men and women are not equal, in terms of physical strength men and women are not fucking equal, in terms of using logic and reasoning men and women are not fucking equal, in terms of sex drive men and women are not fucking equal- men have higher sex drives. Men are dominant in all of these fields.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html
    http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/women.html
    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/women_and_minorities_in_science.htm

    Men dominate greatly in mathematics and science and every important field because they're better at it. If those links aren't to your liking then you can search for yourself to see what I'm saying is true.
    Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
    Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, 1874, pp. 859-860.
    I shall begin this discussion of sex differences in ability and achievement in the place where the most striking and controversial gender differences are observed. Virtually all the people throughout history whose achievements are acknowledged as products of undisputed genius have one thing in common. They come from a great variety of geographical, national, social and religious backgrounds, but they are all male. Starting with names like Da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, Galton, Shakespeare, Edison, Goethe, Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Picasso, we might have to fill many pages before the first comparable woman would appear. When we consider the claims of women for inclusion in the list of outstanding accomplishments, their contributions can be seen mostly in the fields of literature (Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf), humanitarianism (Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa) or politics (Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir), rather than science, technology music or fine art.

    The supremacy of men in the field of scientific achievement can also be seen in the record of Nobel prizes awarded for physics, chemistry and medicine/physiology. Reviewing the background of the 164 recipients of these prizes between 1900 and 1950, (Moulin (1955) noted that only three were women and they had all shared prizes with their husbands. The only exception was Madame Curie, who after sharing a prize with husband Pierre was later awarded another one independently. In a follow-up study by Berry (1981), the sex of the recipients was not mentioned at all. Berry describes the national origin, race, personality and social background of prize-winners, even the age at which their father died, but he does not mention whether any were female. When I contacted him for further information he explained there were so few women in his sample he didn't think them worth mentioning. Apparently there has been no appreciable increase in the number of women receiving Nobel prizes for science in recent years.

    In a recently published book on scientific genius, Simonton (1988) discusses every imaginable demographic and personality factor that might be related to scientific brilliance, including such things as age, birth order and persistence, but sex or gender do not appear in his index. Is this because the gender issue is too hot to handle, or are we supposed to assume without inquiry that genius is a purely male phenomenon? Certainly, raising this question in public today is no way to make female friends, but it is surely intellectual cowardice to side-step it in a book specifically about the topic.

    Few social learning theorists or feminists, if pressed, would deny the preponderance of male genius, but would proffer an explanation in terms of the limited educational opportunities for women throughout history and general discouragement to achieve outside the realm of motherhood and the home. This explanation seems to be unsatisfactory on a number of counts.

    1. Variations in the social position of women do not seem to be accompanied by any change in the sex ration of geniuses. For example, despite the increased number of women in science laboratories in the last three or four decades, the outstanding discoveries are still mostly made by men.

    2. Many male geniuses have to override considerable disadvantage in their educational or social background and considerable social or religious opposition before their contributions are recognized. Galileo, despite being old, feeble, and virtually blind, was imprisoned by the Vatican for his heretical support of the heliocentric theory. Michael Faraday was the son of an itinerant tinker, had practically no schooling and could not afford any books. Isaac Newton came from a family of small farmers, was a premature child so puny and weak that he was not expected to live and received a poor education at the local village school. Charles Dickens and Charlie Chaplin both came from backgrounds of working-class poverty that they capitalized upon in their art. Charles Darwin defied his religious training and risked social ostracism by advocating evolution theory. George Washington Carver emerged from a background of civil war and slavery in Missouri to become one of America's greatest biological scientists, despite constant hunger, poverty and ill health and having been denied education because of his colour. Social and educational advantages cannot be held accountable for the achievements of men such as these, so why should disadvantage be invoked to account for the absence of female achievement?

    3. Social learning theory does not adequately explain why a proportion of women do occasionally achieve quite well in certain areas (e.g. literature and politics) but not in others (e.g. science and architecture). Music composition is an interesting case in point, since it is a male-dominated profession despite the fact that girls are given more than equal encouragement to learn music at school and there are many accomplished women performers. British composer Peter Maxwell Davies recalls asking to study music at high school in Manchester and was told very firmly by the headmaster, 'This is not a girls' school!' For hundreds of years European ladies have been expected to sing and play an instrument such as the piano as a social grace, and yet the great composers have without exception been men.
    Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, pp. 97-99. Peter Owen (London) 1989; Scott-Townsend (Washington D.C.) 1992.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/AshleyHerzog/2008/03/13/will_feminists_again_attempt_to_censor_science

    Here is a good review of that article;
    http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/04/women-in-sciences.html
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited February 2011
    I'm sorry, but all of the latest scientific research clearly demonstrates that brain size and intelligence are positively correlated.

    The correlation of .44, is the result of magnetic resonance imaging of brain size, it in of itself is a high correlation, but we must remember that even higher correlations were identified when the method of correlated vectors was applied by Arthur Jensen, and correlation of .94 was found.
    A 1999 study by Richard Lynn in which he analyzed data from a number of published tests (such as the standardized g-loaded Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised) found that the mean IQ of men exceeded that of women by approximately 3-4 IQ points.[9] Lynn's meta-analysis, conducted in 2004, examining sex differences on the Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices (comprising various g-loaded tests of non-verbal reasoning) also found that men exceeded women by an average of 5.0 IQ points.[10] Steve Blinkhorn published a critique of the article in Nature, [11] to which the original article's authors wrote a response, also published in Nature.[12]. In another study by Rushton, males aged 17 – 18 years were found to have an average of 3.63 IQ points in excess of their female equivalents.[13]

    More recent research seems to suggest a 5 point IQ difference between males and females.
    A meta-analysis is presented of 57 studies of sex differences in general population samples on the Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices (SPM and APM, respectively). Results showed that there is no difference among children aged 6–14 years, but that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points. These results disconfirm the frequent assertion than there are no sex differences on the progressive matrices and support a developmental theory that a male advantage appears from the age of 15 years. A meta-analysis of 15 studies of child samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices showed that among children aged 5–11 years boys have an advantage of 0.21d equivalent to 3.2 IQ points.
    Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis, Lynn and Irwing (2004).

    http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/pei/download/Lynn2004.pdf

    The female IQ curve is steeper, meaning that women tend to group around average; you won't find many very stupid women or women who are geniuses, whereas men tend to be more spread out; you'll find many more extremely stupid men as well as many more men who are geniuses.

    Also take a look at this. A lot of research points to intellectual equality between sexes. However, from what I just posted, this is obviously not the case. Most of the research shows that there is a sex difference in IQ favouring male cognitive superiority, although the difference is small and only becomes statistically significant when large groups of males and females are tested. I suspect that the IQ difference between males and females is maybe 5 points, but I've even seen studies which suggest that the IQ difference is as high as 8.55 or 9.75 points, favouring males.

    A study from the University of California, Irvine showed that men have 6.5 times the grey matter in their brains than women do, and women have 10 times the amount of white matter in their shit-brains. Guess which matter actually matters?

    http://www.livescience.com/health/050120_brain_sex.html

    Women are indeed less intelligent than men. There is no evidence that women "use their brain more efficiently than men."
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited February 2011
    Shall I continue on why men are better drivers than women, even when they've drunk and whilst women are sober, why they make better pilots, the women ceos who were absolutely terrible for the economy and everything else that proves the inferiority of women to men in EVERY field?
  • edited February 2011
    Negrophobe wrote: »
    Shall I continue on why men are better drivers than women, even when they've drunk and whilst women are sober, why they make better pilots, the women ceos who were absolutely terrible for the economy and everything else that proves the inferiority of women to men in EVERY field?

    Please don't. We don't need a WALL OF TEXT on gravity to know it's true.
Sign In or Register to comment.