Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 10    Average: 3.1/5]
55 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4189
Rating: 3.1
Category: Science
Date: 08/23/13 01:05 PM

55 Responses to Earth Is Growing

  1. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7707 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    Link: Earth Is Growing - more facts to explain our planet
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36176 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    55555
    That was funny.
    So, if the US has always been a land-continent, then why are their so many sea shell fossils in the mountains?

    Oh, yeah... pesky details
  3. Profile photo of Quackor
    Quackor Male 18-29
    2856 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    wtf
  4. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    Sorry in advance for sounding like a Dick, but this is full-on tinfoil hat wearing nonsensical stinking bullcum.

    Signed, Dr. Davymid, PhD, professional geoscientist.
  5. Profile photo of Denogginizer
    Denogginizer Male 30-39
    821 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    So where did all the water come from that had to fill in the expanses that became the oceans?
  6. Profile photo of Javien
    Javien Male 18-29
    270 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    Ok, so where the hell did all the water come from then? Would be highly interesting if it was true, but I can`t see any way it can be.
  7. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13595 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    Have to concur with -

    Dr. Davymid, PhD, professional geoscientist.
  8. Profile photo of g3n3r1k
    g3n3r1k Male 18-29
    250 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 2:07 pm
    so does this guy have some conspiracy as to why no one wants to tell him the "truth"...sigh
  9. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    Ooo! I was trying to refer to this theory (Expanding Earth = EE) the other day! With the expanding universe & balloons & stuff.

    It`s interesting, it answers a LOT of questions!

    Downside: It raises even more! It requires a huge chunk of current knowledge to be tossed out.

    The water? Even Current Theory (CT) says most of the Earth`s water came from comets. EE says those comets came later than CT does.

    He doesn`t mention that the Earth is getting bigger AND increasing in mass too! From the "middle-out" rather than stuff falling from space. The EE thinks ALL large bodies do this too: the Sun, the Moon, asteroids... at different rates of course.

    Strangely? Sub-atomic physics "works better" under the EE theory... not much better! But a little.

    And no, I don`t "believe it`s true" but it is an INTERESTING IDEA, eh?
  10. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    @Gerry1: The EE allows land to move up & down, over millions of years. Also all the water might have formed oceans in odd places while the Earth was smaller?
    It`s NOT a perfect theory!

    The main point it`s making is: how can both the Atlantic AND the Pacific be getting wider at the same time? (they are) That would require several huge "tectonic plates" to be grinding under one another, but there`s only one! (California) That I`m aware of.

    @davymid to the rescue with some accurate information? As opposed to a half-baked understanding...

    EE Idea: Gravity was lower millions of years ago, and the atmosphere was thicker.
    >>That explains land dinosaur size and those HUGE flying lizards! They simply couldn`t exist in modern gravity & atmosphere!
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36176 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 3:20 pm
  12. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    Davymid: It`s scientific fact that subduction drags seawater and dissolved gasses into the earth`s mantle and eventually erupts as volcanic rock, which has a vesicular texture (like a sponge full of holes). Not unlike blowing bubbles in a milkshake with a straw. This rock expands in size because of the trapped gasses.


    Olivine basalt, notice the spongy look.

    This could explain the expansion of earth`s crust without adding mass. The more subduction that goes on the more gasses get trapped and the more the earth inflates because of it. But this is all theory, it would be rather hard to prove conclusively.
  13. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    5cats - NO. You are soo wrong. Gravity was not significantly lower in the past, and the atmosphere was not thicker. There were higher levels of o2, but not thicker. And how did you become a geologist?
    You have the nerve to accuse a geoscientist of having a half baked understanding? Really? And where do you get off saying that subatomic physics (quantum mechanics) "works better"? So now you are a theoretical physicist?
    You are getting wackier by the day.

  14. Profile photo of flying_ltj
    flying_ltj Male 18-29
    340 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    massive deformation of Alaska with this flawed worthless theory.
  15. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    @turdy: I SAID WITHIN THE EE THEORY!
    Geez-Louise you`re grumpy lately!

    @CrakrJak: Yeah, that would take a lot of water! And would mean there used to be WAY more water than there is today...
    No worse than EE theory! lolz!

    See @turdy: Within that theory! Not "in fact" ok?
    Sub-atomic particles have a habit of appearing & disappearing. K? So ONE idea is that at the bottom of a big gravity well (mass) they could appear and stick around! Thus increasing the mass of wherever they grow. Anti-matter & stuff, OK? Such things DO exist and current science has a hard time explaining them.
  16. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 5:19 pm
  17. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 5:20 pm
  18. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 5:59 pm
    @5cats you should call that EE an hypothesis not a theory
  19. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 6:06 pm

  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    @Crabes: Yeah, I suppose so! I doubt the results would be different though...

    Also: I don`t think I can spell hypothesis... oh? I can? Hooray!
  21. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    5cats - what you said still makes no sense. Admit it, you just want to disagree with davymid, so you are trying to make up stuff. But in this case you don`t know enough about the topic to make up anything that makes sense. Sorry 5cats, I`m not just trying to be a dick to you. Just calling you out for saying stuff that isn`t true.
  22. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    This is why I laugh at those that take things even "scientists" say at face value. Most think they are "in the know" yet as it turns out, science isn`t as fool proof as most think. Just remember that the next time you hop on a new trend band-wagon
  23. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    5Cats: Some scientists do believe that much more of the earth`s surface was covered by water. There is evidence of large inland seas that are now dried up.
  24. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    @turdy: But... I LIKE @davymid! He`s A-OK in my books!

    And it`s just a theo... a HYPOTHESIS! (lolz! Thx @Crabes!) I never claimed it was factual, proven or even correct. It`s an IDEA.

    No worries though! My skin`s gotten thicker after a few years on IAB... :-) I just appreciate it if people knock me for stuff I deserve, as opposed to, um, me not deserving it?

    Yeah! Something like that!
  25. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 7:21 pm

    5cats - is "thick skin" a way of saying "ignore whatever doesn`t suit by beliefs"?

    I agree, you have very thick skin.
  26. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Plus, you definitely deserve it. You accused the only one here who studies this particular science of having a "half-baked understanding" and also say his ideas aren`t accurate, and respond with made up science and outright nonsense.

    Just stick to the stuff you know about. (not science)

    Don`t take it too personal. I LOVE SCIENCE. I won`t pretend to know all, but I will point out obvious lies disguised as science. You can say "it was just a hypothesis" now, but you originally claimed it as factual knowledge.

    In the end, I love your wacky, crazy, sometimes bat s#it crazy...sometimes brilliantly correct ideas and comments. I just love science and facts more.
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm
    ...with some accurate information? As opposed to a half-baked understanding...
    @turdy: The "a" should be replaced with MY to make it clearer, yes? I was referring to MY understanding as "half-baked". WHY would I ASK @davymid to tell us "accurate information" and then accuse him of being "half-baked"?? That makes no sense & it`s not what I said.

    Thick Skin = Ability to withstand criticism.
    Thick Skull = Ability to ignore facts.
    Thick as a Brick = Jethro Tull, see:



    EE th... EE hypothesis offers an explanation for cosmological "missing mass" too. A POSSIBLE explanation, not the ONLY one! See? And while highly UN-LIKELY it`s still fair game! Stranger things have happened, eh?
  28. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 8:09 pm


    5cats - sorry, I misunderstood your comment there. I see what you meant now.
  29. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm
    No worries! I did much worse the other day :blush: and got such a scolding for it!
  30. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 2:48 am
    Away from personal criticism and back to the science bit.
    Millions of little bits of space-debris land on the Earth daily. Meteorites may burn up in the atmosphere, but the stuff still adds to the mass of the planet. Over millions of years, I would imagine that this amounts to billions of tons.
    We know that there have been many large `events` where a lump of something has fallen to ground. Some of the larger lumps are cometary remains that are `dirty snowballs`. `Snowball` melts and adds to the volume of water in the seas. We do not know where the ice came from; it could have been on of the gas-giant`s moons being torn up by gravity in the early years, with a lot of the bits going through the earth`s orbit: increase in mass = more gravity = more dirty snowballs = more water. Seas get bigger, land-mass breaks up and continental drift starts.
    I wasn`t there at the time, so I`m surmising.
    If you were there, prove my theory wrong!
  31. Profile photo of Vimto
    Vimto Male 40-49
    2852 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 5:11 am
    I`ve always loved this as a theory. Probably disprovable but a pretty sound starting idea.

    Also, nice to see a Jethro Tull reference in the comments there.
  32. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 6:41 am
    The original theory is complete BS.

    The Earth has stayed approx the same size for Billions of years. The moon acts as a decent analogue; lower gravity = reduced ability to retain atmosphere = no wind = retained evidence of craters. Moon`s tectonic activity ceased after it lost it`s amosphere, older tectonic plates display greater densities of craters... Earth and Moon are approx the same age so similar conclusions can be drawn (albeit Earth`s higher gravity means a greater meteorite impact; however meteorite impacts have reduced in intensity in recent years (as can be deduce, amongst other source, from the moon)...

    There is no conspiracy of silence amongst the science community on this matter mid oceanic ridges - the `barcoding` of minerals, subduction zones, ophiolites, earthquakes, Iceland, Hawaii, Japan, Himalaya`s, satellite technology, etc etc all concur with the theory of tectonic movement.
  33. Profile photo of inversegrav
    inversegrav Male 30-39
    770 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 11:08 am
    earth slowly blowin up.
    Marvin musta got the pew-2-36 space modulator.
  34. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 11:48 am
    @MrRugby.
    The consensus of them that know, (the Zanussi-heads), says that at today`s rates, about 40 tons of space dust/micro-meteorites a day falls to our planet surface. That is 14600 tons per year. If the approximate break-up of Pangea was 250 million years ago, that is about 3,650,000,000,000 tons added to the planet mass. Then adding the extra-big lumps of rock, iron and broken asteroid over that period, it is probably a significant amount more. I reckon that a large number of comets over those many years are responsible for the mass of water that is the oceans.
    I`m not a moon-made-of-cheese or aluminium-foil-hat sort of person, but that is the only way that I can rationalise the argument.
  35. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 11:53 am
    MrRugby: Earth`s size may have nothing to do with it`s mass. It`s the density of the magma that could be changing here. Not unlike the difference between an unpopped kernel of corn and popcorn. The kernel is the same weight before and after, but the density has changed because of expanding gasses (steam).

    Scientists admit that the mid-Atlantic ridge is expanding, they just won`t admit that the "ring of fire" around the pacific maybe expanding too.

    Since there is no change in mass, only density, gravity doesn`t change in this theory.
  36. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 12:54 pm
    Your example of the vesicular texture of some rocks is correct, but these tend to be formed in low pressure environments - e.g. pumice. Igneous rocks vary in texture according to a number of factors including pressure and temperature. Rocks containing say olivine and kimberlite don`t display this texture. Furthermore, metamorphic rocks such as slate and marble are the result of high pressure, high temperature environments subjected on mudstone and limestone respectively.

    Although, feel free to cherry pick at science and come up with your own theories.
  37. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm
    Nickel. The general concesus is indeed that rock is being attracted to Earth anyone who has seen a shooting star can attest to that. Indeed, I attended a lecture where a leading scientist stated that over 1000kg of dust and rock was reaching Earth each year from Mars ALONE (asteroid impact releasing dust out of Mar`s atmosphere and reaching Earth) based largely on samples noted on Antartic`s white background (showing up the `black` meteorites)... He had good reason to believe that this may have harboured extremophile bacteria that in theory could survive an interplanetary journey (although this is a different story).

    Assuming your figures are correct, the approx mass of the Earth is:

    5972000000000000000000000000 tonnes

    compared to your:

    3650000000000 tonnes

    Or (assuming my calculations are correct) one 10,000th billionth of the total mass of the Earth - a largely insignificant amount to increase the size of the
  38. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7707 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    Don`t you love how I-A-Bers can prove or disprove anything, even science itself to win an argument.
  39. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31762 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    @MrRugby: Welcome to IAB! At least from de-lurking :-)

    The Moon used to be MUCH closer to Earth! Billions of years ago, it had tectonic movement because of that. It also deformed Earth`s molten surface like a tide, but hundreds of feet! And faster revolutions too!

    Only 250 M years ago? I thought it was a little longer (icbw!), but you`re correct, the falling mass isn`t that important.

    @Vimto: Thx! Bricks make me think of Jethro, and also Krazy Kat & Ignatz Mouse!



    @drawman61: Yeah, we`re `funny like that` eh?
  40. Profile photo of Agent00Smith
    Agent00Smith Male 18-29
    2581 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 9:50 pm
    A good driver doesn`t need to know exactly how every part in his car works. A good life doesn`t require knowledge of how everything in the universe works.
  41. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 11:20 pm
    Quoting Crakrjak: Earth`s size may have nothing to do with it`s mass. It`s the density of the magma that could be changing here. Not unlike the difference between an unpopped kernel of corn and popcorn. The kernel is the same weight before and after, but the density has changed because of expanding gasses (steam).

    Scientists admit that the mid-Atlantic ridge is expanding, they just won`t admit that the "ring of fire" around the pacific maybe expanding too.

    Since there is no change in mass, only density, gravity doesn`t change in this theory.
    Crackrjak dude, you have no f*cking idea what you`re talking about, and the more you talk, the more you make yourself look like a f*cking idiot.

    I`m still LOLing about how you tried to "school" me on how to find oil, with facts that you wikipedi`ed about ultamafic caprocks on an article about waterfalls.
  42. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 24, 2013 at 11:28 pm
    Look, there`s no conspiracy, we understand pretty well how the earth works, and the planet isn`t a f*cking inflating balloon. Every time you or I fill up our gas tank for a few bucks, thank f*ck people who know what the hell they`re doing are finding the oil.

    We be scientists.

    But then Crakrjak, you think that there`s no such thing as Evolution (being as you are Christian religionist moonbat), so forgive me if I take your views on science with a pinch of salt.
  43. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 1:16 am
    5Cats, thanks, I`ve lurked for around 10 years!

    You are correct, our Moon was closer to Earth,and is moving away from us at a rate of about 1 inch per year. The moon is indeed also believed to be slowing Earth`s rotation down as a result of tides causing friction. Fossil indicators of some coral from the Jurassic display daily and seasonal growth patterns to indicate there were around 400 days in the year back then.

    You might be right that the moon and Earth proximity caused the tectonic movement on the moon, but the lower mass of the moon I believe also caused it to cool quicker. As mentioned earlier, the moon and its tectonic plates acts as a decent indicator of meteor bombardment to Earth.

    Re the pacific rim - it contains a number of faults. Subducting (Japan - hence the tsunami) constructive faults and transverse faults (San Andreas - and earthquakes on the West coast of USA).
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 4:45 am
    Davy: I didn`t "school you" on "how to find oil", I refuted your claim that fracking caused groundwater pollution. So first off, get your sh|t straight.

    "we understand pretty well how the earth works.."

    Says the guy that still believes in Global Warming even though global temperature has remained steady for the past 15 years and is well below all of the models used to predict it`s rise.

    I believe a lot of scientists are elitist egotists that think their sh|t doesn`t stink and are too proud to admit they might be wrong. That attitude is what still holds back many promising theories and research.

    Btw, finding oil is still a lot of guesswork and it still takes a lot of luck to find it in useful quantities. So despite all your education your work is still a crapshoot most of the time.
  45. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 6:16 am
    CrackrJak.

    You really do talk crap!

    What models are you referring to re climate change? ALL of them prove it`s not happening? Really? Find me some reputable scientific papers please.

    15 years is not long enough to verify climate change anyway (even if what you say is correct) - climate patterns are based on longer term observations. Deducing the difference between natural and anthropogenically induced climate change part of the role of climate scientist. Using say Carboniferous and Cretaceous analogues in times of high O2 and CO2 levels to recreate palaeo-environments is one means of deducing current impacts, as well as looking at Oxygen Isotopes in ice cores. But I guess you know better that all of them!

    Furthermore, what do you know about groundwater flow modelling/fracking`s impact on groundwater pollution? What hydrogeological experience you have in addition to your seeming climatological expertise.

    You really have absolutely no idea wha
  46. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 10:15 am
    MrRugby: Calm down, first off you are misinterpreting what I`ve wrote and secondly you could easily do a few web searches and find this.

    But since you can`t, here it is.
  47. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 10:25 am
    Also, since you are desperate need of a primer on fracking. I`ll do you a favor and show you an illustration.



    The fracking zone is thousands of feet below the water table. The shale that is fractured is below "caprock" layer(s), which is impermeable rock that trapped the oil below. The fracking zone doesn`t come anywhere close to the water table. They line and cement the wellhead, just like normal oil wells, to avoid any contamination there.

    Sorry, but the scaremongering going over fracking is a bunch of "green" bullocks whose purpose is to kill the oil and gas industry.
  48. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 1:02 pm
    With all due respect, the Daily Mail really is the lowest form of journalism...

    Try looking at the source paper. The findings the Mail refers to can be found here:

    Met Office

    Who say:

    "There are several important messages to be taken from this study. Firstly, it demonstrates
    that very little can be concluded from 10-year trends with respect to global warming since the
    distributions of trends overlap substantially. It is only with averaging periods of 30 years or
    longer that climate change can be detected robustly. Secondly, the results show that a pause
    of 10 years’ duration is likely to occur due to internal fluctuations about twice every century.
    Thirdly, the results also show that beyond periods of 20 years and longer, a pause of that
    duration occurri
  49. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 25, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    Re the fracking. You may well be right... However, it certainly is a new technology and there has been anecdotal evidence of tremors associated with it. Furthermore, the geological cross section will vary according to the specific sites. Whether groundwater gets impacted or not isn`t clear. There is no green conspiracy here, if a towns water supply gets knackered up, it will costs millions to rectify (before you even account for potential impact to the wider environment)... I don`t dispute that it might work, but this is to some extent a shot into the unknown.
  50. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 26, 2013 at 5:08 am
    MrRugby: Global warmists have been scaremongering for a long time now, those fears have simply not come true and won`t. Trust me, in the 1970`s they were scaremongering about a new ice age that didn`t happen either.

    The oil industry has had hundreds of years experience safe guarding groundwater, they wouldn`t risk a big lawsuit. It`s expensive to drill and it`s a crapshoot whether or not they get useful production. They don`t compound that risk by being reckless, fracking is not done in shallow (close to the surface) shale formations.
  51. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 26, 2013 at 6:02 am
    There is another Ice Age Coming - see Milankovich, Younger Dryas event to start with... Ice Ages can

    You are neglecting to consider surface activities too. I`m not saying it will definitely cause contamination - but you can`t categorically say it won`t.
  52. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    Also, since you are desperate need of a primer on fracking. I`ll do you a favor and show you an illustration.
    That`s cute. What google search did you pull that picture from?

    I invited you to attend the F*CKING TRAINING COURSE that I ran last year on fracking. I think I might know more about it than you, crackrjak.

    Again, at risk of sounding like a dick:

    Signed, Dr. Davymid, PhD, Professional Oil Exploration Geoscientist (including giveing training courses on hydraulic fracturing).

    p.s., no it`s not always "thousands of feets below the water table".

    Anyways, whatever. You whatever helps you sleep at night. Climate change isn`t happening, evolution is a lie, etc etc. Forgive me if I take you less than seriously when you speak of the science of an expanding earth to explain tectonic theory.

    I`m done here, Davy out.
  53. Profile photo of HerColdHands
    HerColdHands Female 18-29
    471 posts
    August 26, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    drating Neal Adams get out of here with your stupid Expanding Earth videos.
  54. Profile photo of MrRugby
    MrRugby Male 30-39
    38 posts
    August 27, 2013 at 12:23 pm
    P.s. FWIW, My job is dealing with oil contamination, often in groundwater.
  55. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    August 27, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    Save your breath, MrRugby. Crackrjak knows more on every subject than everyone else, including those that are professional in their field.

    All while sitting unemployed at his laptop all day long.

Leave a Reply