Proof of NO brain is exposed by using the 'having skin in the game' as a valid argument.

in Proof of Brain2 months ago

I was searching though the hive blockchain today, doing what I do, (research purposes).

This post isn't about that - that was merely the spark of inspiration that led to writing this post.


Let's begin shall we ?...

Do you know why doctors don’t treat close relatives, or spouses?
Do you know why surgeons don’t perform surgery on close friends , relatives , or spouses?
Do you know why attorney's are always advised to take legal council in legal affairs's that concern themselves?
I'm sure you do know the reasoning that's behind this....

They are too close.
...Whether it be the friend or relative under the knife, or being too close to themselves, when under legal scrutiny.

All of them know that having skin in the game clouds their judgment.
Biases, whatever they may be - clouds clear thinking and the critical thought process....there are a million and one examples of clouded judgment leading to very poor decision making.

Logically - there is zero argument for 'having skin in the game' in some way allowing you to make better decisions or forecasts.
Personal bias is a known psychological reality.
It's one that actually prevents unbiased thought processes occurring.

Why the fuck then, does this seem to be the diametrically opposite perspective taken in crypto, and the Hive community?
Is it people pretending to be clever?.. feigning competence over idiocy?

And what then, does this say about their own agenda's?

lllp (2) - Copy.jpg

There must be some element of gas lighting attached to it, that's for sure.
After all, it's attempting to use a false reality - One that 'skin in the game' somehow gives you more legitimacy - when it is actually shown that holding that position means the opposite in terms of objective reasoning.
The opposite of this is much, much, closer to the truth...

Repeating ‘having skin in the game’ doesn’t make the sentence more valid, no matter how much you make it a mantra.

Contrary to popular postmodernist belief, (and Goebbels from the well renown truth tellers called the Nazi party) , telling a lie often enough doesn’t make it the truth.

Repeating ‘having skin in the game’ doesn’t give your perspective more validity, it only tells others that you have a bias that will affect your perspective.

It doesn't give you more insights or more clarity of thought.

Using the real life examples that I've mentioned above - it shouts out at actually being the very opposite.
When doctors and surgeons find 'having skin in the game' detracts from being the best they can be - because of bias - but crypto nerds offer the diametrically opposite opinion – really does put thinks into perspective, doesn't it?.

I can appreciate that many people on hive think know that they are far more intelligent than the world of surgeons and the volumes of work discussing how bias affects everything.

Why use logical facts that surgeons employ to avoid bias clouding their professional decisions, when you can just use postmodernism instead? (sarc)..

Just who are these people trying to convince?

Themselves?...Others ?..Or maybe it's both?

There ain’t nothing like a dufus with severe intellectual insecurities, desperately trying to convince the world they are not, in fact, a dufus.
(very possibly along with many other different insecurities, I'm sure - but we’ll keep the focus quite narrow on this one) .

viking flats - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg

... you'd think that they'd at least attempt to swathe their ignorant arguments in a thin veil of some critical thought, wouldn’t you?
...A few hours of studying this subject would avail them well in peddling untruths , using tricks to make them look legit....
It wouldn’t stand up to any rigorous dissection of course - but it might help persuade others who are not so circumspect , to swallow their guff.

The only thing that 'having skin in the game' tells you, is that bias is prevalent, and as such is very unlikely to be able to give unbiased information.

But hey - what would a brain surgeons and a hundred and fifty years of psychology know about it?
What would they know about how bias affects everyone and how it also directly affects the ability to apply critical thought to something - and thus leads to making poor judgments ?

"...It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or crypto fortune) depends upon his not understanding it..."

Transposing the saying above onto the crypto space (and hive ) ...and accepting the observable truth that 'having skin in any game does indeed affect good decision making, then the question left hanging, is this....

...Why would you choose to see someone as a legitimate (or wise) source of information, when their own biases are so heavily invested in seeing one particular outcome?

....Especially when their 'salary' (crypto stack), depends on it.

...When you find yourself failing time and time again...

What will it take for you to break a delusional state that empowers this failure ?

Bankruptcy ? destitution ? divorce ?...
Will any-fucking-thing at all ,in fact, ever break it ?

...Or is it a case that these people are so sure of their own intelligence - that they are 'the anomaly' in the whole of mankind - who can transcend their own biases and emotions?
Yeah... right...

Here's a tip on whether or not to swallow whatever your current gas lighting 'guru' has to offer...
....If 'they' ever refer you to to any mainstream media as being a good source of news information (CNN, BBC, Fox, etc)....

Alert! Alert!

viking flats - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg

On it's own , this may just show the naivety of an individual.
How so?
When a known liar - the MSM - is chosen to be believed - that then comes down to you and your own gullibility.
That kind of advice on it's own is not necessarily nefarious, even though that kind of advice would certainly be ringing some alarm bells if you had any sense.

More insidiously however - is the possibility that the guru may not actually believe the advice themselves, the advice that they're giving out...

And that raises some far darker questions.

On the assumption that your guru doesn't believe their own BS
that they're spouting - then this puts them firmly in the 'psychological manipulator' bracket.

What makes it dark, is that by the act of pointing you in a direction they know is patently false - it means that they are really trying to sell you something.
A false narrative, for starters.
They would be intentionally misdirecting you.

Who would do such a thing?
A good person?
Or bad person?
A person without any sense of moral responsibility to others is an evil person.

You can't feign intelligence without manipulation of some kind.
If you can only manipulate others by telling lies, and not your truth from your own perspective - then you're displaying a lack of morals.
Evidence of an evil person...

Using the 'Having skin in the game' as an argument is a good example of this.

It doesn't matter how wide their smile is , or how sexy they look, or how intelligent they try to appear to be.

Wheat from chaff.

'Skin in the game' - when measured as some form of competence or that it gives you some higher insight or more legitimacy into a subject - is a patently false statement...
...This is backed up by so much information and evidence - both theoretical and practical - as to make it an observably idiotic statement.
Don't be taken in by charlatan's.

If you don't know what to look for, I'm here to help.
I know what to look for.
If you have doubts about any particular accounts - feel free drop me an email (in total confidence) - and I'll do my best to clarify any niggling doubts that you might have (free of charge).

From my observations, it seems that Hive is awash with 'less than authentic individuals', shall we say.
People who are trying desperately to appear as something else.
(....Ok, ok, 'awash with them' may be a tad hyperbolic - but you get the idea..).

snap (3) - Copy - Copy.jpg


I only had time to scan read this, but your basic premise is deeply flawed, IMO. "skin in the game" means you have a vested in interest in something doing well. It almost always leads to more favorable decision-making.

Even your examples are off-base. I believe you get much better outcomes typically when you hire a lawyer or a doctor who is your friend than when you get some rando. That extra "skin in the game" means they will go to more effort and prioritize your health over medical expenses that must be paid for by insurance companies.


In DPOS skin in the game is stake.

There is no if, but or coconut.

Because of the large stakeholders, smaller stakeholders get a chance to cash out.

In DPOS, governance is stake weighted. If lucylin or you have stake you will have the ability to govern. If you don’t you have two choices:

  1. Don’t govern, because you can't.
  2. Choose some blockchain or platform which suits you

Complaining about the fundamentals of DPOS will only lower your reputation. Although that number next to your name doesn’t mean much. But if you comment nonsense like this, it will be negative soon. How do you feel if a project owner have negative rep? By the way, you are not the first project to have that. Let’s not go there though. If you don’t like or enjoy hive blockchain, there are alternatives available. Please try them. Many thanks.

PS. I read lucylin’s post in it’s entirety. I agree with Blocktrades that it is nonsense and over rewarded, not in hive anymore but definitely in POB. As a project owner you have the responsibility to manage this kind of over rewarded crap. Because if you don’t, we will have to do it for you.

Good luck :)

Oh by the way....@proofofbrainio... since you like to tag :)

How about I buy your token and support the market and help with your project? Would you say yes? Would you sell me some token? I love to support your project.


I thought the key thing about DPOS is stake? Why don't you sell me 10K POB? Will do it off the market. Are you game?

I really want to help your project, as I think its a novel concept. See I am putting my money where my mouth is, which folks like lucylin won't do. They are here to just extract the reward and sell the token.

What do you say @proofofbrainio .... see another tag :)

You see @proofofbrainio there are ways to governance :) I didn't know this exactly, (I did have a hunch, but didn't spend any time on it), but now I do. Thank you for your help.

Hope to fight spam together side-by-side with you @proofofbrainio :)

PS... later in life, if you change your mind, the offer stands! Always here to help.

You have made your decision without even reading his post and I think you have been swayed by others. I could be wrong here and if so please feel free to correct me.

No one asked me to look at this post or express any opinion on it. I was randomly reading the hot or trending page (I forget which now) and I started reading the post due to its title.

I read enough of the article to conclude it was overrewarded nonsense. Of course, that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with everything said in it. But when it begins with poor reasoning and a lot of hyperbolic content, I think it's quite fair to downvote it, regardless if there was some later truth contained in it that I never got to because of a poor beginning.

Also, as a practical matter, it's been my experience that posts that begin illogically don't tend to get better later. But since you asked me in a reasonable manner, I have taken the time to read the whole post now. And having done, I can't say I've changed my opinion about the post.

From what I can tell, the OP is trying to knock down a strawman argument. I can't be 100% sure who the OP talking about, of course, because he doesn't name any names. But the proponents of "skin in the game" that I know of, most prominently theycallmedan, have never made the argument that the OP is arguing against. They have made the argument that you cite and that I referred to in my initial response to the OP (having skin-in-the game encourages decision making that is beneficial to the system involved).

Nor have I heard anyone else here make the "pro"-skin-in-the-game argument that the OP is railing against. It should indeed be obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence that having wealth doesn't make you smarter than other people. As an obvious extreme case, babies born into wealth would need to be smarter than adults for this to hold true.

But I haven't seen anyone making this rich=smart argument here. Yet the OP goes on like he's uncovered some major discovery by citing what IMO should be an obvious truth to anyone who has had the chance to meet rich and poor people, and how he claims he has exposed some deep underlying rot in Hive, based on it.

Now, a much more interesting article would be an analysis of why the world is full of rich people of average abilities and what the impacts of that are. I've thought about this issue for a long time and I'll probably share some of my ideas about it, once I get some time.

I'm just interested in your last paragraph and would like to read it, please let me know when you publish it.

Posted via

Yes, he is aware.

Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Any further question that I can help you with?

I believe he is talking about someone who actually made the argument that he is arguing against.

Can you find the instance of it? Given his argument style, short of contrary evidence, my best guess is still that it was indeed a strawman argument. It's a very popular tactic used by people who prefer to manipulate rather than rationally debate an issue: they like to mix up a lot of nonsense with some obvious truths to confuse the easily swayed. I think the method was ultimately turned into a science by cold callers who start with obvious questions that get you saying "yes" to, in order to create a trend of agreement.

I'm also curious to know if you are aware that he has been the target of a downvote campaign by @azircon. That could explain (not justify) him being hyperbolic.

I wasn't aware of it, because I'm much more involved on the technical side of Hive than the social side. But I agree it doesn't justify lucylin's response. And that's what I'm voting on.

The downvote system on Hive is deeply flawed, IMO. I even argued against it in one of my early posts on the subject, because it does have negative effects. But I think it also has some positive effects, despite it being a weak system.

I absolutely do believe we need a signaling system for calling out bad behavior, rating bad information, etc. But a downvote on Hive doesn't do this nearly well enough, because it's too one dimensional, and it assumes that the reaching of one consensus is the optimal state. We need something much more nuanced, and that's what I'm planning to create eventually.

The downvote system on Hive is deeply flawed, IMO. I even argued against it in one of my early posts on the subject, because it does have negative effects. But I think it also has some positive effects, despite it being a weak system.

I have been planning to publish a post about this, but my personal take is that a downvote should 'cost' the same voting power as an upvote. If I choose to negate someone else's upvote with a 100% downvote (or replace many minnows' upvotes if I have a lot of HP), it should also replace one of my own 100% upvotes.

Posted via

You obviously missed the entire Haejin drama where that proved to be at the detriment of those who wish to counter abusive behavior.

I've done that with others before "free downvotes" were a thing and let me tell you this:

It's incredibly stupid to expect someone else to sacrifice curation so "bad actors" won't get anything while everyone else who doesn't care gets their returns.

Even with the compensation programs set up by @steemflagrewards, it was still doing it at delegators' expenses with little to no upsides.

It's incredibly stupid to expect someone else to sacrifice curation so "bad actors" won't get anything while everyone else who doesn't care gets their returns.

There's a free-rider problem, for sure. But the current DV system is itself ripe for abuse. And it will encourage ideologic DV wars once the ecosystem begins genuinely expanding.

Also, it punishes legitimate curators when the "bad actor" is the author and vice versa.

I get it that 'free DVs' had their place in the past. I am not convinced, at all, that they represent the best solution moving forward. It represents a small-minded solution (imho).

That's good to know, if you're wondering what it might be good to have terms and conditions or something.

Posted via

Could you rephrase your idea above: I wasn't sure what you were referring to above, especially as to how terms and conditions could apply to it. In other words, my comment had several points and I'm not sure which one you're referencing.

That you're working on a new project to address the abuse.

Do you realize in the white paper, there is no comment on giving 'explanation' regarding why a DV is given? Yet, here we are giving you explanation for 2-3 hours plus on our actions out of sheer courtesy.

Do you give a reason on why you upvote Lucylin's every single post? Because I like to ask you that. Is 'his' every single post is of equal value to you?

Mind you, you are not required to answer me. But maybe you fail to realized, and any tribe token is quite centralized. You are the largest owner and creator of the token. We are just mere investors. But you are in our courtroom, not the other way round :) If you satisfy us, we will buy your token and price will go up, if you don't satisfy us, we can sell your token and price will go down. This is very simple. This is a question from your large shareholder, not from me. He was asking you, why do you upvote every post by these two individuals. Again, you don't have to answer this question :)

But your community is watching you :)

You see, I don't have that problem. I didn't make a token and sold it on the market. I paid money to buy your token :) You see? @proofofbrainio :)


Both of you can't be telling the truth here.

I responded elsewhere in more depth on this issue and azircon has confirmed upon review of the conversation that my recollection was the more accurate one in this instance. But it's very easy to read intentional deception into cases where people simply have slightly different recollections of events. Our mental context influences our perception of what information was conveyed and we can easily think we've shared information that hasn't been shared.

Are you saying that's why you downvoted it and why you are affirming your actions. Because he was hyperbolic? Your original reason that you gave for downvoting has changed then?

I downvoted it because I thought his post wasn't a good post. I don't have the time to go into depth on every reason I downvote something. I added a comment to explain one clear and simple reason, which I thought was more than generous in this case.

As I have pointed out there are flaws in your logic, and I believe that you are abusing your power. I'm not sure why you are doing those things, but my arguments have shown that you have.

This is probably going to be one of those "agree to disagree" issues. I don't think you've shown any flaws in my logic, nor do I believe I'm abusing my power in this instance.

That could be cool as long it is does not depend on a central power.

Yes, in fact, that's a fundamental aspect of it. There's some very preliminary discussions about the ideas behind it here:

Thanks for the support @proofofbrainio - But at think we all know at this point, that is has zero to do with the post...
(He called me 'a scam artist' in a reply a few hours

My bad. Not scam. Spam.

Lucylin repeats the same thing over and over again. That is considered spam.

How do you scam on blockchain? lol...(not including dodgy links and things).

It seems far more morally dubious to take away other peoples voting power. (their upvote + their inflation % of their stake ...I must be dumb or something...)

On the upside, it makes for great reading material.....

There are, or were, a lot of people that would talk "skin in the game" talk. Mostly I would ignore them, even when I first started on the block chain road of alternative discovery. "Skin in the game" just means they were not able to grow an account from the ground up, so they bought a lot so they could feel good about themselves, not all of them of course, but it seems to me quite a few.

Just because a person is rich does not make them more human and less fallible than a poor or middle class man or woman.

And just because you guys constantly spew hate and nonsense doesn't make you intellectual.

And just because you guys constantly spew hate and nonsense doesn't make you intellectual.

And exactly where and what post have I spewed hate? nonsense yes because I do have a tendency to enjoy having fun on a wide variety of topics, intellectual??? me I think not, you really have the wrong person if you think I have ever professed to be an intellectual!!

I have a lot of comments on hive and steem combined according to hivebuzz that number is 21232, I doubt that you would be able to find five if even that many.

I have never retaliated via down votes on a post that went against my belief system. I have down voted Plagiarism and maybe one spam poster, that is it. I have never down voted someone Just Because someone else gave an account a big vote.

There are a lot of people from a lot of different parts of the world that have a different moral code than I have. I can live with that, a lot of people can not. So they retaliate via down votes. The retaliate via irrational rants, I find a lot of things funny, and amusing, some rants can be down right hilarious.

  1. I don't hate and have not posted any hate
  2. Nonsense -- yes absolutely guilty as charged. I do post and comment a lot of that.
  3. Ask the inellectuals if they think I am one of them, and you would probably ahve them laughing out loud in your face with comments such as "you think that dumbass is an intellectual?"

Thanks. I never thought you are an intellectual :) I was trying sarcasm and failed :)

What is that phrase again? Giving someone their own medicine?

And after this many months/years on hive/steem we have failed to educate you on the simple fact that downvote is not retaliatory it is simply disagreement on rewards.

If you do not like downvotes; there are other blockchain social networks available that may suit you.

The only people the down votes are disagreement on rewards is for those that have Skin in the Game for the vast majority of the community conscious people the down votes are reserved fro plagiarism and spam, not to effectively remove or prevent an individual utilizing the vote system for curation rewards. IE; down voting the vast majority of post that haijin and traflager vote on in order to minimize their rewards and a few others.

You can justify your spite and other individuals spite to large votes from them, (haejin, rancho, traflger and there is a couple others), all you want, until the ability to down vote and remove the vote from the individual that cast the excessive vote is implemented then your's and everyone else's down vote for reward dispute is empty justification and hollowness on your part and all the other down voters for reward dispute.

Look at the trending list - if you really want to down vote for reward distribution. Justify why they are rewarded so much. As I said the excuse for down voting for reward dispute is empty and hollow.

There are people that enjoy the style of this particular post, there are people that enjoy the one screen shot of a technical analysis post with 50 words. There are people that enjoy seeing pictures and reading stories. The only reason for down vote for rewards dispute is because the down voter either does not like the poster, does not understand the post, or is anti to what the poster is presenting, or the real truth - they are punishing the person that gave out a big vote because they could.

3.- Ask the inellectuals if they think I am one of them, and you would probably ahve them laughing out loud in your face with comments such as "you think that dumbass is an intellectual?"

You clearly are not an intellectual @bashadow. You are a damn Oracle!!

Just because a person is rich does not make them more human and less fallible than a poor or middle class man or woman.

you're a hive blashphemer ! lol

Carry on with that kind of talk, and you'll be getting as many downvotes as me!lol

Life happens, I don't post often any more, well never really posted a lot, I sometimes share stuff I like.

Those that down vote for reward dispute will never change, they are going to always be around trying to control the narrative. The only opinion that matters at the end of the day for them is their own opinion.

I agree.

And the actions of the weak ego's helps to create such a solid foundation for a 'revolutionary web 3.0, social media platform' , doesn't it? (sacrc).

English is my 3 language so i could be wrong, but i thought Skin in the game means exactly that, there is skin to be lost if shit goes bad.

in the example of "Do you know why surgeons don’t perform surgery on close friends , relatives , or spouses?" the skin in the game would be that you f up and do something bad to your friend... Or if you do it as a job on person that you don't know and you f up skin in the game is that you will lose your job and not work again as a surgeon.

not having skin in the game would be if a surgeon is doing an brain surgery and you walk in as a random guy (not working there, no one knows you, you just ended up there and have nothing to lose) and you are convincing the surgeon that he is doing things wrong and he does not know how to do his job.

Does that mean the the surgeon is 100% right or that you are 100% wrong? No. but does that mean that surgeon will get fired if he listens to you and fucks up and you will just walk away with no consequences? 100%

A medical doctor is not going to try and remove you from life intentionally. There are measures in place to prevent doctors from trying to intentionally do wrong. There are zero measures in place to prevent malicious down voting taking place on Hive, and removing peoples ability to participate in the Hive Social side.

There are measures in place to prevent some no skin in the game walking in on a surgery in progress. There are measures in place to prevent a no skin in the game, from trashing a skin in the game account, that being the amount and in-ability of a small account being able to in reality down vote and cause damage to a much much larger account.

There is ZERO ability for a no skin in the game account to protect itself from asshole Skin in the game accounts.

Downvoting doesn't prevent someone from participating in the Hive social side. Assuming by that you mean communication. And you can tell from his subsequent comments that the OP knows this. Downvoting is a redistribution of rewards away from one post to other posts. As it happens, I think the current system on Hive is far from perfect, but until we can make improvements, we operate within the confines of the current rules.


It is kinda obvious when the most powerful accounts on the platform downvote you for earning too much.
You have gone on at length about this facet of dpos.
As your many upvotes can attest.

But you also cover other topics, as well.

While the one I won't name was here it was decided that doing what he did would keep him from getting soooo much from his 'bad' behavior, but what is the excuse for doing what he did now that he is gone?
Seems our 'guardians' have their veil of legitimacy dangling for all to see.

Holy shit have I upvoted him $10 in the past week? That is reward pool RAPE...

Put down the Lucy, and back away from the pool!!

I'm not going anywhere.
I'm collating material via observable actions to build a picture.
...even blocktrades is getting in on the downvoting cabal action !

The DPoS picture is getting uglier with each and every downvote.
People are watching this can take that to the bank.

cvg - Copy (4) - Copy - Copy.jpg

viking flats - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg

The downvote parade is ridiculous! Glad to hear you aren't going anywhere.

ya think! - over two months now - daily.

For what it's worth though, I view DPOS differently. The "skin in the game" means something a bit different to me. The concept was - those with the most stake would have the incentive to do things that bring value to the platform.

This idea is not accurate in it assumes the stakeholders have the skill set and or enough humility to seek out experts to assist with the growth of the platform. None the less as owners of the stake they have the right to make right or wrong decisions, and since participation is voluntary, there is no such thing as tyranny, either you choose to participate, knowing the rules and the strengths and weaknesses of the stakeholders, or you choose not to.

Those with the largest investment (stake) are much like owners especially in this case (Hive) where it is a tiny, close knit group. Since the rules and actions of the group are transparent, it's simply a choice. If you like what they are doing and think it is providing something, could be a great experience, could be a speculative investment one can hold or buy. If you don't like their actions, don't invest or choose not to participate, or.. yell about it. All are valid, but it's a free choice to play or not play.

On a personal level I don't care for the way some of them interact with people and while I don't think tyranny applies, the Authoritarian tendencies do show up, and it seems really disingenuous to pretend these downvotes have anything to do with rewards. I do agree that's a matter of integrity, again I think it works out fine, because it only hurts the credibility of those who say one thing and do another.

The stake and the stakeholders and the rules are clear. The blockchain is designed around DPOS which has it's strengths and weaknesses, those strengths and weaknesses are amplified or mitigated by the culture, skills and styles of the largest stakeholders.

Ranting against DPOS on a DPOS blockchain seems a lot like yelling at a rock.. WHY ARE YOU A ROCK.

Just dropping this for the discussion. ;)

In summary they can choose to act like this it's well within rules. However, also Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

This is actually quite nicely explained, whatsup. I don't have the patience with this crowd, so I am glad you took the time and explained. With that said said I think you effort is likely in vain. One of my fav authors wrote:


But still I thank you for trying. Appreciated

It's always good to take an opportunity to write it out, it helps me solidify my own understanding.

It also doesn't bother me if people see the world or even just the Hive world differently than I do.

Glad the message came though.

they did and it's good to have some conversations like this imho. I really like Lucylin's take on your vacation :)


The only skin i have in the "game " sit's on my bones , where i like to keep it , thank you .
What i do see is people with interest's that could blind there vision , like that professor that took a second shot from his self created vaccine , to show and so convince his students to take it to , and died that day . ,... whooops , he missed some .
Same with people having big stakes in crypto or trade , them having that makes them no fortune teller , no matter how lucky they got in the past . It is for sure no reason to follow or upvote them , you'll probably end up becoming there daily income by upvoting like worshiping some god .
It also doesn't mean that all bigger accounts are morons with coins , just some , just some that better be ignored ,.... you know , by not voting on them . ;-)

Posted via

...but downvoting by the the powers that be - on something like this post - says so much...

it is simply disagreement on rewards.

Just this , see it's simple , .... simple as fuck to act like a stuck up stick and take from what others gave to one ,... without ever explaining the disagreement in any way .
Some weak comments here with the most childish answer ,... if you don't like it you can always leave ,.... OMG , it must be the 5th wave , it can be no more then 12 years old i guess .

Jaaaaawwwn , wahoe ... sleep time again . ;-)

You can't fix stupid - but you can put the spotlight on gives everyone a good laugh at their expense, if nothing else...

Don't accept medical advice from media companies that are owned by corporations that profit when you are sick.

Would you look sideways at someone who tells you people should own their own home when that person has been a renter for the last fifteen years? Would you look sideways at someone saying Bitcoin is going to $1,000,000 a coin this year when most of his money is in stocks?

That's "Sir leprechaun" to you, by the way. 😉

Ok, Sir Leppy, I'll bear that in mind...

Nice one... thanks for sharing

Posted via