#272633 - 20/12/2005 17:20
Slapp!
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Yeah-uh!Judge strikes down ID in PA. I'm glad to see reason prevail for once. Flame suit on.  -Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272634 - 20/12/2005 17:40
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Best part of the story, the judge who wrote the majority opinion is a GWB appointee. His cerebral implant must have been on the fritz.
I'll take it, though. This ruling, and the leadership shown by Arlen Specter this year, make me proud to be a PA resident.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272635 - 20/12/2005 17:51
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
HARRISBURG, PA., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances "a particular version of Christianity."
Beautiful. (bold is mine)
You want to teach ID in schools? Fine- teach it in a religion survey class, not biology.
Not beautiful. (while we're in PA-land)
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272636 - 20/12/2005 18:12
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Robotic]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Quote:
"I can't lock up his guns. They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them."
Yes, you can! He's ELEVEN.
What an extraordinary example of lack of any good judgement.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272637 - 21/12/2005 19:25
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
new poster
Registered: 21/12/2005
Posts: 5
|
Quote:
Yeah-uh!
Judge strikes down ID in PA.
I'm glad to see reason prevail for once.
Flame suit on.
-Zeke
This news made it down in little ol' Ne Zealand too. I love it (and think the judge did the right thing). For me the core of the question was "Is ID actually creationism using different words".
A resounding yes to that one. It is (of course) up to the good people of the US to decide whether religion could/would/should be taught in schools...
MDU
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272638 - 21/12/2005 20:30
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ManDownUnder]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't think that there's any restriction now in teaching the history of religion, or even comparative religion in school. Of course, I don't know of any schools that have such a class. But, regardless, it should be in a liberal arts class, not a science class.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272639 - 21/12/2005 21:41
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
journeyman
Registered: 14/12/2004
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
Quote:
"I can't lock up his guns. They belong to him, and he has a right to use them whenever he wants to use them."
Yes, you can! He's ELEVEN.
What an extraordinary example of lack of any good judgement.
-Zeke
Well the air up there in the hills is a little thin and his mother and father are most likely brother andn sister!
Edit: fixed broken tag
Edited by wfaulk (21/12/2005 21:46)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272640 - 21/12/2005 23:44
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I just want to know how something can exist without being created. So if the Big Bang created the Earth, then what created the Big Bang? That is all I want to know, and then I´ll be ok with it being taught as science.
Something can not be made of nothing according to science. Energy can not be destroyed or created; it can only be transferred. So where did the energy come from? Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
The government shouldn´t trump a parent´s authority. I´m not saying children should be indoctrinated with creationism in public school, but they also shouldn´t be indoctrinated with something that goes against their family´s core beliefs.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272641 - 22/12/2005 00:31
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created.
That's a human concept. Some things just *are*. Like the world, or like God, depending on which camp you subscribe to.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272642 - 22/12/2005 01:29
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Ah.
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272643 - 22/12/2005 02:30
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
In the matter of PUBLIC school, you're damn straight the government should trump a parent's authority!
Creationism has no place in any science class in any school with an ounce of self-respect. Otherwise why settle on Christian beliefs when $cientology is so much more profitable? Chemistry, biology and physics should all have a heavy dose of Thetans and a clearing or two.
I went to a Roman Catholic high school. Science class was "Science" - no creationism, no "God." The only place religion factored as curriculum was in Theology class - and each year the focus was quite different. One year was devoted to World Religions and covered Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity (a number of derivatives), Judaism and a few others including Islam. It was interesting. That class was mandatory each year. I can see offering some type of World Religions class in a public school as an elective the same way I can see a Political Science class.
Next thing you know you'll start hear about people trying to get Moses, Abraham and Noah into the history classes.
Bruno
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272644 - 22/12/2005 04:20
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Robotic]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 15/01/2002
Posts: 1866
Loc: Austin
|
Quote:
Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Ah.
It is just as effective and a lot less dickish if you don't announce it. No need to be provocative, especially if you can't read any retorts. I'd rather not wade through something you might stir up in your... whatever it is that compelled you to post that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272645 - 22/12/2005 04:39
Re: Slapp!
[Re: RobotCaleb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Unfortunately, responses to blocked posts are not themselves blocked.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272646 - 22/12/2005 08:29
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
|
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created.
Yes, we'd all like to know that. The only honest answer that anyone on this planet can give you right now is "we don't know". Trying to answer a question of this magnitude with fairy stories is an insult to the intellectual development of our species. We need to understand that it's OK to say we don't understand something, because that's the first step on the path to understanding.
Unfortunately it may be that from our perspective we can never unravel the mystery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, with every last theory subjected to proper scrutiny.
Quote:
I´m not saying children should be indoctrinated with creationism in public school, but they also shouldn´t be indoctrinated with something that goes against their family´s core beliefs.
..and because of this attitude I fear it will take dozens of generations for our species to overcome this hurdle in our emotional development. Somewhere the cycle has to be broken.
Rob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272647 - 22/12/2005 10:53
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5683
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
Something can not be made of nothing according to science.
Only according to classical science. At the quantum level crazy shit can and does happen. Particles can spontaneously appear and disappear.
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272648 - 22/12/2005 11:37
Re: Slapp!
[Re: Roger]
|
addict
Registered: 02/08/2004
Posts: 434
Loc: Helsinki, Finland
|
Quote:
Only according to classical science. At the quantum level crazy shit can and does happen. Particles can spontaneously appear and disappear.
That is going to keeping me chuckling all day! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272649 - 22/12/2005 13:23
Re: Slapp!
[Re: rob]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created.
Yes, we'd all like to know that. The only honest answer that anyone on this planet can give you right now is "we don't know".
The idea behind ID is saying that a study of science leads us to the reasonable conclusion that something or someone intelligent initiated creation. This is really a rather modest claim, really, seeking to make some headway in the question of our origins without providing a definitive solution. The notion is that you look at all the factors regarding our existence using sciences such as physics, biology, astronomy etc. then the evidence appears overwhelmingly to suggested a well ordered and thought out creation, and therefore an intelligent designer. From a pure science point of view, this seems to be a reasonable exercise if applied correctly- what conclusions can we draw from our observations about the universe around us? Of course, to have this discussion with integrity you'd have to look at both options- is there evidence of order in our existence due to an intentional creation or because it occurred and therefore appears ordered? This application of science seems very appropriate to me if it extends no farther than that which, as conceived, ID was not supposed to do.
Unfortunately, it seems that there are too many ideologies wrapped up in the issue for it not to grow beyond such discussions. Even though evolution squarely fits in with the idea of ID as defined above (the intelligent designer could set up evolution in the blueprint for our existence), immediately when ID is discussed it becomes ID vs. evolution- certainly helped by those offering ID as an "alternate theory".
However it was proposed, it seems that ID has become simply another wrapping of Creationism, and certainly that will be struck down in public schools. That's a little disappointing, because once again I think looking at the scientific evidence for order in our existence and then discussing our conclusions could be very useful and scientific.
Quote:
Trying to answer a question of this magnitude with fairy stories is an insult to the intellectual development of our species.
And the original idea behind ID was not to answer the question with fairy stories- only to discuss the conclusions we have based on the evidence. The old analogy is that if you see a working clock then you assume someone designed said clock and that it did not spontaneously occur. The thing is, you cannot draw many conclusions beyond the simple existence of the clock maker. Was it a man, woman, or maybe even a machine? Was it a moral person or a mass murderer? There is no evidence from the created thing to suggest any of this- only that the maker exists. The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock. If we feel that it does, then the existence (at some point) of a creator logically follows, though we’d know nothing more about him/her/it other than that. Certainly this logic would fall very short of validating Creation as presented in the Bible.
Quote:
We need to understand that it's OK to say we don't understand something, because that's the first step on the path to understanding.
That being said, it is reasonable to look at our scientific evidence, draw conclusions, and then discuss those conclusions. In fact, it is even reasonable to apply scientific evidence to non-scientific hypotheses. But the moment your start using non-scientific evidence then you've moved beyond science. Not to say that your hypothesis isn't true, but your evidence must be scientific to be considered science.
Quote:
Unfortunately it may be that from our perspective we can never unravel the mystery, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, with every last theory subjected to proper scrutiny.
And in ID we have a reasonable theory, I think. I've read a lot of the evidence for ID and it seems very compelling. Unfortunately, often both the arguments for or against ID end up devolving into a debate about evolution or religion vs. science- at this point I just have to throw up my hands and start ignoring the subject, which I think is unfortunate.
I think ID as originally proposed is compelling and would like to here more about what science really says about the hypothesis removed from ideologies. Unfortunately, there are very few people discussing it that way- until there are more it is not something we can reasonably address in a classroom.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272650 - 22/12/2005 13:25
Re: Slapp!
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I just want to know how something can exist without being created. So if the Big Bang created the Earth, then what created the Big Bang? That is all I want to know, and then I´ll be ok with it being taught as science.
Science doesn't need to answer every lingering question in a given discipline to teach that discipline. The Big Bang is taught as theory, because, although there is scientific evidence which supports it, there isn't enough to say conclusively that it happened. That doesn't mean it ought not be discussed, it just shouldn't be taught as fact (which it isn't.)
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has *no* scientific evidence supporting it. ID arguments always take the form of "evolution can't explain X, so X must be the result of a higher power." That is a leap in logic and a leap of faith, two things that science doesn't allow.
To your specific "where did the Big Bang come from" question, science is happy to leave it at "we don't know, but we'll keep looking." That keeps debate open, experiments active, and ultimately leads to a better understanding of our world. Simply filling in all blanks in our understanding with "God made it" leads to complacency, because the question is already answered, with no scientific evidence to back it up. See also, alchemy.
Quote:
Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
Your assertion that the Big Bang is taught as fact isn't how I was taught, nor does it appear in any science textbook I've ever read. This is how social conservatives keep their cause alive, by making up pretend assaults on their beliefs. It's similar to how jihadist muslims create fear and hatred of the West. Without the reactionary forces of the religious right pushing the idea that secular liberals are trying to take their Jesus away from them, the ID debate would have never even gotten this far.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272651 - 22/12/2005 13:38
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
ID arguments always take the form of "evolution can't explain X, so X must be the result of a higher power."
This is not an ID argument, even if people make it. Proper ID arguments take the form of "we observe x through science which implies a specific design, and therefore a designer."
Regarding the Big Bang- the Big Bang actually implies a specific point in time for Creation and even aligns somewhat with Creation as presented in the Bible (Let there be light, etc.). There are many Creationists who believe the Bing Bang theory is true (and of course, many who don't).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272652 - 22/12/2005 13:39
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
The old analogy is that if you see a working clock then you assume someone designed said clock and that it did not spontaneously occur. The thing is, you cannot draw many conclusions beyond the simple existence of the clock maker. Was it a man, woman, or maybe even a machine? Was it a moral person or a mass murderer? There is no evidence from the created thing to suggest any of this- only that the maker exists.
Bzzzt. The flaw in your logic is that we know man makes clocks (we have evidence of that) but we don't know that anything made man, or even that anything made anything which led to man. Science always starts with a question (who made the clock, or the Universe) and it's fine to come up with alternate hypotheses to test. But unless you have means to test them, to turn those hypotheses into theories and eventually into scientific fact, the ID hypothesis deserves as much time as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science classes aren't concerned with the teaching of every theory that's remotely possible (such as the clock spontaneously materializing, or being put there by aliens.) Science classes are for teaching theories that have at least a modicum of evidence, a metric that Intelligent Design falls short on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272653 - 22/12/2005 13:49
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
we observe x through science which implies a specific design
Observing X, Y, or Z through science doesn't imply anything. Observation is a vehicle for scientific discovery, yes, but observation itself doesn't imply. Implications are made by people, usually on the basis of experimentation and logic. You can have a theory with only logic, but you cannot have a scientific theory worthy of teaching in a science classroom without experimentation and evidence. Simply looking around at other sciences and making inferences about the origin of man isn't science at all.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272654 - 22/12/2005 13:50
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
This is how social conservatives keep their cause alive, by making up pretend assaults on their beliefs.
I don't think this is quite accurate. By that I mean that social conservatives do not "make up pretend assults", but rather they truly believe that the world has some agenda against their rightous cause, so any point of contention is truly perceived as an assult to them. I think this is unfortunate because it ruins credibility and devalues the real discussions that ought to be taking place.
I only bring this up because it seems both "sides" accuse each other of assulting and then write off anything said rather than trying to truly understand the other perspective.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272655 - 22/12/2005 13:55
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
they truly believe that the world has some agenda against their rightous cause,
If so, their delusional paranoia undermines their cause.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272656 - 22/12/2005 14:12
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Quote:
The old analogy is that if you see a working clock then you assume someone designed said clock and that it did not spontaneously occur. The thing is, you cannot draw many conclusions beyond the simple existence of the clock maker. Was it a man, woman, or maybe even a machine? Was it a moral person or a mass murderer? There is no evidence from the created thing to suggest any of this- only that the maker exists.
Bzzzt. The flaw in your logic is that we know man makes clocks (we have evidence of that) but we don't know that anything made man, or even that anything made anything which led to man.
Ok, well you left out my next line:
Quote:
The only question ID really asks is whether or not our existence and the world around us equate to the clock.
I mention this because you make it sound as if I'm an ID proponent ("The flaw in YOUR logic"), which I'm not. I just haven't really heard the issue truly disccussed in the terms it was origionaly presented. Your argument about the knowledge that man makes clocks is a good answer to this latter statement, though I don't really think definitive. I'd like to hear more disccusion.
Quote:
Science always starts with a question (who made the clock, or the Universe) and it's fine to come up with alternate hypotheses to test. But unless you have means to test them, to turn those hypotheses into theories and eventually into scientific fact,
Not all scientific observations are testable. We have no way to test the Big Bang theory, yet it is still in the realm of science, though it is certainly not presented as fact. We have made observations about the universe and created a theory that fits what science is telling us, a reasonable and scientific approach.
Quote:
the ID hypothesis deserves as much time as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Science classes aren't concerned with the teaching of every theory that's remotely possible (such as the clock spontaneously materializing, or being put there by aliens.) Science classes are for teaching theories that have at least a modicum of evidence, a metric that Intelligent Design falls short on.
I don't think this is true. Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life. There are many other scientific observations that align with the premise of ID, something missing for the FSM. Have you looked at the scientific backing for ID? It's certainly there- the question is whether it means what ID proponents say it means.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272657 - 22/12/2005 14:16
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
If so, their delusional paranoia undermines their cause.
Yes, delusional parania undermines many causes.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272658 - 22/12/2005 14:17
Re: Slapp!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Quote:
Exploring the Big Bang and similar theories is science, but it's not proven fact, and teaching as such only comes off as brainwashing, telling children that what their mommy & daddy taught them isn´t true.
Your assertion that the Big Bang is taught as fact isn't how I was taught, nor does it appear in any science textbook I've ever read.
That's probably true for the Big Bang, but not for other, better-attested conclusions of science. As a better example of Billy's [edit: not Jeff's] point, the children of some fundamentalists get told at home that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, and became extinct only at the time of Noah and his flood. These same children then get told at school, as plain fact, that dinosaurs and humans never lived at the same time, not by millions of years.
To anyone paranoid or insecure enough to perceive such education as "an assault on their faith" -- well, yes, such assaults are widespread in the US (I'm guessing -- if Calvin and Hobbes are anything to go by, palaeontology is a big thing for US children) and nothing short of ubiquitous in the UK. In a way, a school hasn't done its job unless the children of young-earthers, like the children of flat-earthers before them, go home with the conclusion that what their mummy and daddy told them isn't true. But it's nothing personal, not a specifically anti-Christian agenda: I'd expect the education system to clear up all such misconceptions irrespective of origin. (Watch East Is East for a good film about the conflict between strict religious parenting and modern secular public education.)
Peter
Edited by peter (22/12/2005 14:30)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272659 - 22/12/2005 14:24
Re: Slapp!
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
As a better example of Jeff's point, the children of some fundamentalists get told at home that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, and became extinct only at the time of Noah and his flood.
For the record, not MY point- he was responding to Billy's statement. My contributions to this thread have been isolated to questions about the merits of ID theory as origionally concieved.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272660 - 22/12/2005 14:29
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
For the record, not MY point- he was responding to Billy's statement.
Oops, sorry.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272661 - 22/12/2005 14:34
Re: Slapp!
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Oops, sorry.
Heh, no problem. It is a thorny issue for me, where what is taught in a public schools and religions collide. I don't like it, but I don't see any easy answers either.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#272662 - 22/12/2005 14:42
Re: Slapp!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31602
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Science tells us that we exist in one of the most ideal planets in the galaxy, universe, and solar system. Science tells us that the laws of physics that govern us are perfecly suited to support life.
Based on the context of the way you made this statement, I'm taking it that this is one of the arguments in favor of ID?
It's funny, because this very concept is one of the ideas that, when I was very young, gave me the epiphany as to precisely how we could have evolved without a creator. The exact opposite of the intent of the argument.
I've mentioned this before on the BBS, but I'll repeat it for the sake of this thread. The idea goes like this:
- In order for us to have evolved, we'd have to be astronomically lucky, in terms of location, timing, and chemistry.
- Shouldn't this make us assume we were deliberately created?
- No. It simply means that the 'verse is a big place.
- Anyplace else, and we wouldn't have evolved the way we did.
- Because of the location, we evolved brains that allow us to sit here and contemplate our own existence.
Here's the other way of looking at it: The man holding the winning lottery ticket would be a fool to throw away the ticket because he thinks he couldn't have won by chance or because he thought the game was rigged.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index