Saturday, November 22, 2008

Expanding Earth Revisited



Results of a long discussion with a bunch of geologists. That's not to say that they agree with me -- far from it -- they stated in no certain terms that I am a "jackass." But as is usually the case when dealing with academics, I learn the most valuable information in spite of rather than because of its source.

There are three lines of evidence to support the idea that the Earth is expanding, with the oceans constituting the increased surface area: They are geologic, biological, and historical.

The geologic ones are the most compelling, so I'll begin there:

1) As is well-known, the continents adjacent to the Atlantic fit together, that the Midatlantic ridge traces their breaking point, new crust is continually being created at the Midatlantic ridge, and the oceanic crust gets progressively older the further one gets from the Ridge. To verify that, take a look at the image to the right, which shows sea crust ages with red youngest and blue oldest.

2) What's not so commonly known as that the Americas fit with Australia and the Asian trench system as well.

a) Look at Australia and South America. The nub on the Eastern cost of Australia fits into the indentation in South America. Also, look at the East Pacific rise. Although turned slightly clockwise and elongated slightly, it's a perfect fit for Western coast of South America. That turning and elongation is reasonably explained by the existence of another ridge, running from the East Pacific rise to the Chilean coast, and itself producing new crust.

b) Look at the trench immediately off of Kamchatka, headed south to the Mariana trench. Notice that if you slide that trench along the curve of the Aleutian trench, it would be a perfect fit for the Western Coast of North America.



3) So the continents fit together like puzzle pieces on both ends. Is it proof that they were once connected? No. But the evidence that they fit on one end is just as good as the evidence that they fit on both ends, because it is based on identical facts. It seems to me, then, more reasonable to conclude that they were one once linked on both ends than to conclude they were once linked on only one.

4) Also interestingly, the sea crust is substantially younger than the continental crust. Like ... the oldest sea crust dates to approximately 250M years, while the continental crust dates to approximately 4B years. While those dates are based on questionable methods and shouldn't be taken as gospel, they do provide stong evidence that the Atlantic and Pacific (at least the Pacific East of the trenches) formed at the same time. Standard theory, of course, has it that all the continents were bound in Pangaea, and then split, floating their way back into the Pacific, which is (presumably) growing ever smaller. In that scenario, of course, we would expect the Pacific to be older than the Atlantic -- after all, the Pacific was already there when Pangaea broke up. But interestingly, it's not. Both oceans are the same age. And much younger than the continents.

5) The trenches in the Pacific experience extremely frequent earthquakes. There's really no question about that. But a little known fact about those earthquakes is that the earthquakes less than 300km from the surface at tensional, rather than compressional earthquakes. What that means, in simple terms, is that the wave characteristics of the earthquake indicate that it was caused by crust pulling apart, rather than being pushed together. Standard theory explains this as being a result of the downward moving, subducting slab being pulled away from the crust above it. The "Benioff zones" are also used to bolster this conclusion. As in the earthquake map above, earthquakes occur at progressively greater depth as one moves away from the center of the Pacific. This is seen as consistent with increasing depth of the slab subducting under the Asian plates.

There's a problem with that interpretation, however. Specifically: the "subduction" zones don't look like one rock going under another. The trenches, for example, are enormously deep, and steep -- usually less than 5 degrees from vertical. descending quite quickly. (Don't be fooled like I was by pictures that show them to be super-steep -- the vertical scale is consistently exaggerated, even on 3d images without a scale). They are also generally quite wide -- often approximately 50km wide. Is that what we'd expect if one giant piece of rock was being pushed under another? No way. First of all, we would expect compressional, rather than tensional earthquakes, as the subducting slab pushed against the continental slab. We have the opposite. We would expect a moderate slope toward the subduction zone that showed us the direction of motion of the slab. Instead we have a flat seafloor, followed by an enormous drop in a nearly vertical direction. Further, while we have direct physical evidence of new crust being formed at the ridges, we do not have direct physical evidence of old crust slipping under the other crust at the subduction zone. Finally, if one plate is slipping another another, we would expect an immediate rise in the crust that's on top -- but we don't have it. We have a volcanic zone some distance beyond the trench, but no slow rise right there to account for the "buried" ocean crust.

It simply does not look like subduction is happening.

But what if those trenches are not caused by subduction, but by stretching? What if the giant, steep trench is caused by the two plates pulling apart rather than being forced together? Well, we'd expect it to be steep (which it is) look the slope of a glacier when an iceberg breaks off. We'd expect it to be wide (which it is), rather than narrow, as it was continually being pulled apart. We'd expect a lot of earthquakes (which there are) from the pulling motion. We'd expect volcanos on the continental side, as the pulling motion "loosened" crust further toward the continent, creating passageways for lava from the mantle to reach the surface. Finally, we'd expect the earthquakes to get deeper and deeper as one approaches the continent (Benioff zones), as earthquakes only occur in brittle Earth, and the mantle is (except in its uppermost regions) plastic and not given to Earthquakes, and continental crust is much, much thicker than oceanic crust, allowing Earthquakes to occur at much deeper levels. Finally, we would expect the earthquakes (at least in the crust) to be tensional, rather than compressional. Which they are.

For icing, add the fact that the trenches on the Asian side of the Pacific fit the coast of North America perfectly.

Strong evidence, it seems to me, that the trenches are caused by tearing, rather than subduction.

6) Expansion without subduction. One more important point in the realm of geology. An oceanic ridge surrounds the entire continent of Antarctica. The necessary implication is that there is expansion southward. In order to absorb that new crust (and keep the size of the Earth static), there must be a subduction zone going East to West around the Earth. But there is no such beast.

So enough geology. There's also evidence in biology.

1) This map shows the present-day distribution of marsupials. Interestingly, they're found in Australia and the Americas. Now don't get me wrong -- fossils of marsupials have been found on all seven continents (including Antarctica). But the fact that marsupials survived to a much later date in the Americas and Australia supports the idea that the continents were linked, such that Australia was ecologically and biologically linked with South America -- more linked, in fact, than to the ecosystems in between.

2) Giant animals in the past: The fossil record is full of animals that could not survive in today's gravity. Arthropods bigger than humans. 3-ft long dragonflies. 2M millipedes. Giant claw reveals the largest ever arthropod" (2007), Biology Letters. And let's not forget the dinosaurs -- 350lb flying creatures, enormous saurapods, etc. No way in the world they could make it in today's world. Yet somehow, they used to. How? Maybe reduced gravity on a small world?

Finally, some historical references:

Plato wrote in the Timaeus:

"For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."

What a strange lie. That is, if it is a lie.

But let's not forget old Genesis.

Gen 2:5: "For the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

Gen 6:11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up.

Gen 10:25: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided.

Also strange historical references. That is, unless something crazy and cataclysmic happened to the Earth's geology, causing massive changes in continental configuration.

25 comments:

MJC Rocks said...

The link to the discussion with geologists is:
http://dynamic-earth.blogspot.com/2008/02/as-far-as-wonky-pseudo-science-goes.html

BrianR said...

ungtss ... the expanding Earth hypothesis is not internally consistent - those that advocate it can't account for data/observations consistently from one place to another. And separate EE advocates are inconsistent with each other's ideas on fundamental aspects. See the commenters on my three-part series, starting w/ Part 1 here, but more detailed discussions on Parts 2 and 3 (links to those are in Part 1). I can't get them to answer or address very basic relationships.

The EE advocates need to get together and hash out both the fundamentals as well as specific details of this hypothesis ... they need to collect data, write papers, have meetings ... they need to continue testing this idea. But they are not doing this - advocates simply assert that EE is the best model for how the Earth works and spend 99% of their time attempting to debunk subduction.

ungtss says: "Strong evidence, it seems to me, that the trenches are caused by tearing, rather than subduction."

Other expansionists disagree with that statement ... this is not a disagreement about some very specific detail that is common in science - this is the foundation of the entire concept!!

I encourage you to engage with other expansion advocates and deal with what could be multiple (and competing) sub-hypotheses w/in this concept. I look forward to seeing how that goes, good luck to you.

ungtss said...

Brian:

ungtss ... the expanding Earth hypothesis is not internally consistent - those that advocate it can't account for data/observations consistently from one place to another.

For instance?

And separate EE advocates are inconsistent with each other's ideas on fundamental aspects. See the commenters on my three-part series, starting w/ Part 1 here, but more detailed discussions on Parts 2 and 3 (links to those are in Part 1). I can't get them to answer or address very basic relationships.

There are bound to be disagreements on hypothetical aspects of any scientific model -- the point of science is to sift the good from the bad through testing.

advocates simply assert that EE is the best model for how the Earth works and spend 99% of their time attempting to debunk subduction.

Is that really how you see my post above?

ungtss says: "Strong evidence, it seems to me, that the trenches are caused by tearing, rather than subduction."

Other expansionists disagree with that statement ... this is not a disagreement about some very specific detail that is common in science - this is the foundation of the entire concept!!


Not at all -- the foundation of the concept is that the continents very clearly fit together across the pacific, the oceans are much younger than the continents, and subduction is not adequately evidenced. Whether the trenches are convergent or divergent seems fairly peripheral.

I encourage you to engage with other expansion advocates and deal with what could be multiple (and competing) sub-hypotheses w/in this concept. I look forward to seeing how that goes, good luck to you.

Thanks, Brian. I really appreciate your open-minded and scientific attitude with all this. If you have any sources or cites that debunk what I'm saying in my post, please let me know.

BrianR said...

In the comment thread of my Part 1, in reference to the western Pacific, Neal Adams stated:

"In some areas nearly a hundred miles of oceanic plate may have subducted."

This is the complete opposite of envisioning it as divergent, or 'tearing' ... this is not a minor detail, this is fundamental. Work it out w/ the other subduction denialists.

I'll leave it here ... I have no time or effort to get into another debate about this ... if that means you want to declare victory and therefore modern plate tectonic theory invalid ... feel free to do so.

Good luck.

MJC Rocks said...

I agree, you must be right that plate tectonics is all wrong and expanding earth supporters have uncovered a massive conspiracy. Well, ok, no.

You have large areas in which your knowledge is simply missing or wrong. On your post above you claim that "trenches, for example, are enormously deep, and enormously steep -- usually less than 5 degrees from vertical."

Look at your own diagram. The horizontal scale is hundreds of miles, the vertical scale is tens of miles. Trenches are around 5 degrees from the horizontal, not the vertical. The steeper side is 10-15 degrees. That alone pretty much negates the whole paragraph.

I suggest that any readers following this thread check out the original debate at http://dynamic-earth.blogspot.com/2008/02/as-far-as-wonky-pseudo-science-goes.html, and also BrianR's discussion on subduction at http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/11/14/subduction-denialism-part-1-the-backstory/ to see what geologists with some knowledge of geology think about these ideas.

Your sudden introduction of biology is also somewhat lacking: what does gigantism have to do with anything? Gravity changed? Just like that you are altering physics and biology to make your case. Terrestrial megafaunas are still with us and doing fine, thank you. So are five or six foot long lobsters and giant squids.

And finally, after all the solemn declarations that every statement must be backed up by irrefutable laboratory evidence, you introduce "evidence" written 3,000 years ago by Plato and the unknown authors of Genesis (Moses, the D source, the Q source?). What are their credentials for entering this discussion?

You wouldn't be trying to set the stage to say that the first oceans were the ones navigated by Noah are you?

Anyway, good luck with your quest.

James said...

While there may be some untrue statements made by many expanding earth theorists, like the earth is hollow [rolls eyes]. The earth is actually expanding.

Biology and geology both offer strong evidences.

Australia fits into South America. There are fossils that are found only in Australia, South West Asia, and South America.
The age of the pacific is 180 million years old or less. Nothing older. The age of the Pacific is EXACTLY the same age as the Atlantic.

Everything I just detailed above is used as evidence for a closed Atlantic. That is because both the Atlantic and the Pacific were closed at the same time. In order this this to happen the earth had to be smaller.

The larger size of creatures in the past in another good indication of an expanding earth. The average size of creatures have dropped over the years.

There is controversy over how active the t-rex was. Those who study the bio-mechanical aspects say t-rex was very active. Those who study the structural strength of the bones say it would be to large to be very active. This paradox can be cleared up easily with a smaller earth with less gravity.

ungtss said...

Brian:

Neal Adams stated:

"In some areas nearly a hundred miles of oceanic plate may have subducted."


You only pulled part of his quote. His full quote was:

In some areas nearly a hundred miles of oceanic plate may have subducted.
But IT COULDN’T HAVE subducted under 60 km thick solid-bottomed Asia
Or gone past the asthenosphere into the DENSE SOLID MANTLE.


Both his and my hypotheses are consistent with an expanding Earth. He speculates there may have been some subduction 60 MYA, but certainly not enough. I speculate that the trenches are not instances of subduction at all, but stretching. Both are consistent with an expanding Earth, because the heart of EE is that new crust is forming, but not enough convergence is occurring to fully account for the new crust. Both of us agree with that. So no, while the disagreement is certainly important, I don't think it is fundamental to the model.

MJC:

Look at your own diagram. The horizontal scale is hundreds of miles, the vertical scale is tens of miles. Trenches are around 5 degrees from the horizontal, not the vertical. The steeper side is 10-15 degrees. That alone pretty much negates the whole paragraph.

True. I got the angle I cited from a secondary source, was lazy and didn't double-check it, just did as much research as I could, and determined you're right -- that 5% number appears to be false. I'm going to strike it.

allenvaught said...

Good posting Ungtss. I am amazed at how important it is to these supposed objectivists that you agree with them. Science really has fallen from grace hasn't it? EE does explain facts that pangea does not. Truth is what matters, or should, and if geology has been on the wrong track for years, well, better fix it sooner than later.

ungtss said...

Allen:

Thanks, man. Nice to know someone else can see what was going on, too. And please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the issues here and there is real evidence invalidating the EE model. I don't want EE to win by default in my mind simply because I don't happen across a geologist who is able and/or willing to effectively explain the evidence to a geological dummy like myself.

BrianR said...

ungtss says: "I speculate that the trenches are not instances of subduction at all, but stretching."

I see - one expansionist says there is subduction at these margins, another says it's stretching ... if that's not fundamental disagreement, I'm not sure what is.

You can speculate all you want, you can speculate that the moon is made of cream cheese and argue that it is consistent with observations (since the moon landing was a hoax, right?) -- but, it won't make it so.

The other anti-subduction enthusiasts on my blog cannot answer simple questions or account for relatively straightforward sets of data and observations -- they answer my questions about how their model of the Earth accounts for the data by making stuff up on the fly! It's quite entertaining.

The comment threads are now dying (even though they are very active on other blogs in the meantime) because they simply cannot account for the data. Perhaps you should present your trench-stretching model ... one of the commenters agrees w/ Adams that there is subduction (although limited) while another seems to agree with you ... at least so far, it's difficult to pin down these competing and quickly-changing concepts.

As I said above, have a exapansionist conference -- work all this out. You'll be amazed at the progress ideas can have when everyone gets together to debate and discuss. But I sense some resistance to debate and discuss WITHIN the expansion community ... you guys just want to attack the mainstream. I suppose that's way more fun (and a lot easier) than actually doing your own research.

ungtss said...

Brian:

(Snip the usual ad hominem, as well as an odd accusation that I am a moon-landing denialist).

The other anti-subduction enthusiasts on my blog cannot answer simple questions or account for relatively straightforward sets of data and observations -- they answer my questions about how their model of the Earth accounts for the data by making stuff up on the fly! It's quite entertaining.

Their inability to fully flesh out the model does not invalidate the basic claim, supported by the evidence, that the Earth is expanding.

Your biggest issue appears to be with how EE explains the Andes. Again, if you want to falsify EE, then you must demonstrate how the Andes are inconsistent with EE. I have heard no such demonstration.

In the absence of such a demonstration, throwing out "How does your model explain the Andes" is no more relevant to the validity of the model itself than the question "How does evolution explain fingernails?" We may not know how it is explained, but neither do we know why it's particularly inconsistent.

Hypotheses? I have a few.

1) The Andes may predate the oceans -- i.e. they may have existed before the continents split.

2) The Andes may be the result of vertical uplift as the expansion of the oceanic crust presses into the continent

3) The Andes may be the result of limited subduction, which occurs an an inadequate pace to compensate for new crust, resulting in a net increase in surface area.

All of these hypotheses should be tested -- as well as others I'm not smart enough to think of. I'd be interested to see if any meaningful tests have been conducted to falsify any of the alternatives.

But if you think the inability of EE theorists to explain the Andes invalidates EE, you're way off base. On the contrary, in order to invalidate EE, you are obliged to show how the characteristics of the Andes are inconsistent with EE.

As I said above, have a exapansionist conference -- work all this out. You'll be amazed at the progress ideas can have when everyone gets together to debate and discuss. But I sense some resistance to debate and discuss WITHIN the expansion community ... you guys just want to attack the mainstream. I suppose that's way more fun (and a lot easier) than actually doing your own research.

I don't see the purpose of a "denialist conference." I think the truth can only come forward if people of all opinions discuss the issue with an eye to discovering Truth.

I will also post this on your side.

BrianR said...

okay, I will respond over there

choice passages said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)

Read this and tell me this is not pseudoscience, I beg of thee!

No, actually, it is, like EE, one of those endeavors which smack completely conspiratorial at first glance, yet with patient, sober consideration, becomes a beast which defends itself quite well.

I implore you to check this out and order book 1. I'm not trying to "sell" this to you because of some ulterior motive - I've followed your stuff (reading nearly all of your posts here and on that "geologists" blog) and feel strongly that you would find that this is a worthwhile investment.

I... am way way ahead of you, though. I am on book 4 and have found that Fomenko is inadvertantly building a surprising amount of incidental support for EE, ironically. If this 'coincidence' were not so utterly random and markedly noteworthy, I would refrain from the suggestion and have foregone dropping this note.

Possibly academics would remark: "but of course, pseudoscience just confirms other pseudoscience, they have their own devious network of creating rapport!" and by this reasoning one might guess that bigfoot, aliens, the illuminati, etc all find interdependence and subsequent cross-validation.

I, however, am inclined to think this is coincidence is fairly isolated and that Fomenko and EE are beautiful-terrible gems separated at birth. (Wow, later, you'll realize how much of a nonmetaphor that statement is!)

At least read the wiki link and let me know your reaction.

choice passages said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
choice passages said...

I just tried posting the link again and it was cut off again. just wikipedia: New Chronology (Fomenko)

ungtss said...

very interesting ... i'm definitely open to his hypothesis ane concur with his criticisms, but his methodology seems extremely unreliable to me. a statistical study of the space used in history books? this is biblecoding. any thoughts?

ungtss said...

very interesting ... i'm definitely open to his hypothesis ane concur with his criticisms, but his methodology seems extremely unreliable to me. a statistical study of the space used in history books? this is biblecoding. any thoughts?

choice passages said...

the statistical support is subservient to the abductive mappings, thus the methodology is abductive, not inductive (my first thoughts)

ungtss said...

fair enough:). the last stage of abductive reasoning, though, is selecting the best hypothesis. which to my mind is the simplest. what of the hypotheses that a) the stats are artifacts of selective analysis of the books, or b) history repeats itself. or both. these seem simpler than a massive coordinated undiscovered effort to erase the past. and are therefore preferable, yes?

choice passages said...

"than a massive coordinated undiscovered effort to erase the past"

this is usually what most deduce when walking away from online summaries and data troves on Fomenko, most sources don't add his personal lines about how innocuous he believes the intent was at this time or that

instead, he characterizes it more like, "an, at times, inadvertant adoption of fabrications, and at other times direct importation of previous histories during migration", he claims that there are very few actual erasures, its mostly importing history into a new geographic region

one doesn't get how nonconspiratorial Fomenko considers most of this process to be (how inadvertant and unintentional histories were produced, concatenated) unless you read his work, thus we naturally assume he is contending for long-term, large-scale conspiracy or maliciousness. this couldn't be further from his characterization. he doesn't villify any writer, really, with one or two exceptions (out of hundreds)

Though cyclic history may seem at first the simpler hypothesis, he goes into some detail as to how he thinks this brings with it some odd set of explanations later which are far less plausible and more problematic than those which are outgrowths from a noncyclic hypothesis, which, doesn't mean people "staged" an ancient time during the Renaissance (another misinterpretation) nor "made up" whole events that "happened" before the Renaissance, but that the way they were ordered, characterized, and formatted by chronologists (particularly Scaliger, but many others as well), was a set of confusions about who or what or where things were happening

pretty innocuous really

ungtss said...

you've definitely piqued my interest. your account of how he dealt with these things both sounds reasoned and was reasonably expressed. sounds like a mind worth listening to. i'll order a volume and hopefully we can talk from there.

choice passages said...

another thought.

Bible-coding is to literary data-mining as set-theory is to mathematics, in that all literary meaningfulness is as combinatorically exhaustive as you'd want to make it (thus the litany of thematizers, journalists, commentators, critics, essayists), and allowing one to define a set without any criteria for membership gives full license to making any set as relevant as another.

But, to me, that doesn't make Bible-coding all that much worse than thematic analyses of Shakespeare, it makes all of it pretty trivial. If in the Leibnizian universe all monads had windows and content, we would be in the same situation.

The situation is different the moment there is criteria for membership. And this criteria is exclusive, covering only the domain shared by the members.

For the Bible, this would mean: outside the historical production of the Bible, all conjectures about themes are trivial. It is only when authorial intent or agenda is taken into account, can we say meaningful things about themes. This is an example of a criteria ("textual criticism") that is more restrictive than another ("critical theory") than another ("devotional commentary") than another ("bible coding"). Perhaps even more critical than textual criticism's criteria there exists something else: but here we are already in the realm of historical chronologies, histories, migration, race, etc.

i would say there is: its individual honesty, or "the calculus of all individual's honesty with respect to their representation of their world"

but more of that later.

if Fomenko is merely drawing lines from dynasty to dynasty saying: i can draw lines, then he is Bible-coding in his statistical lay-outs (the pictorial content serves only the purpose of criteria-less line-drawing, parallelisms).

If Fomenko's statistical spreads are just depictions of claims made elsewhere, then where? it is in the the "actual" parallelisms he tracks, and how "fillers" serve the purpose of importing a like structure. the only reasoning being, the specific parallelisms have some particular importance for someone, at sometime, somewhere, and it is their general creativity (or lack thereof) which determines some of the phantom productions that fill in the rest of the empty space. this is particularly important if your sole agenda is gaining authoritarian preeminence over another through claiming historical precedence or geneaological heritage (think nietzsche), which he's claiming various authors on the Asian continent (most western, central, eastern Europe, and Russia) were invested with each their own curious cocktail

Then it is left to those particular threads or "fibers" as he calls them (ofcourse, being a topologist) which are "drawn out" in relief as being more pertinent than others for various reasons.

If he himself has an agenda (Slavocentricism, political Eurasianism, etc as has been leveled against him) then these too are "forced" parallelisms - these particular fibers of greater importance prove to be just as mundane or normal as the rest.

He allows the material itself to tell us otherwise by strewing the data out which he thinks is particularly curious. I think he is right on over 85% of the time, far more than enough to generate a tapestry of distrust. But these must all be judged on a case-by-case basis before this makes any sense. Hence, abductive.

How is this not "selective"? Well, i can't do justice to that, in a sense, it certainly is. But his particular area of mathematics builds a pretty good instinct for "detecting folds", ie, jumping into parametrization by group-theory when calculi fail to characterize, or knowing how to mediate the two. This requires quite a bit of abductive gymnastics to get good at.

(continued)

choice passages said...

Ultimately, I would say, it is his overall tone, and humble approach and nakedly neutral style in his writing which generates a lot of interest in me. He isn't attempting to drain religions of validity, necessarily, and isn't attempting to provide rapport for The Other Russia. He is simply restructuring something the way he thinks it makes more sense, and, by half-way through the first book you will know if he is an honest man or a charlatan

Please let me know if in reading volume 1 you think you've wasted your time, as I would feel conscience-sticken.

ungtss said...

i use humility as a litmus test this day, and your vouching for his carries a great deal of weight. lemme know if you come through albuquerque. i'll buy you a beer.

choice passages said...

like offer always stand in louisville