Tuesday, September 29, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

A note about the 'Richard Dawkins Award' being presented to Bill Maher this weekend

by Josh Timonen

As you may know, Richard has been invited to present AAI’s ‘Richard Dawkins Award’ at their convention in Burbank this weekend. The AAI committee (of which Richard is not a member) chose Bill Maher to be this year’s recipient, especially because of his film, ‘Religulous’. Some commenters have raised objections because of Bill Maher's stance on other issues, related to medicine.

Whilst Richard was not involved in the decision, he is nevertheless happy to go along with it. Just as he worked with Bishop Harries to protest against creationist schools in the UK, and just as he regularly recommends Kenneth Miller's books on evolution to religious people, he understands that it is not a prerequisite to agree with a person on all issues in order to unite in support of a common objective. Richard and Christopher Hitchens don't see eye to eye on all political matters, but that doesn't stop them from working together against the dangers of religion. Honoring the creation of ‘Religulous’ does not imply endorsement of all of Bill Maher’s other views, and does not preclude Richard's arguing against them on future occasions. It is simply showing proper appreciation of his brilliant film.

Bill Maher’s ‘Religulous’ was easily the most prominent film against religion in the United States last year, bringing the discussion to people who might not have bothered to pick up books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, or others. This achievement deserves recognition, and I think we should let him have this moment of celebration.

Josh Timonen

Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 659 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #420120 by Mango on September 29, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Bill Maher is a great voice of reason (much but not all of the time) and as an AAI member I'm happy with this recognition of him.

Other Comments by Mango

2. Comment #420123 by Sally Luxmoore on September 29, 2009 at 10:42 pm

I have no problem with this. I enjoyed Religulous.
I am also very grateful to this site for introducing me (as a Brit) to Bill Maher and especially his 'New Rules', which I think are brilliant and frequently hilarious.
In my view, Bill deserves recognition for his many years of courageous opposition to religion in America. I understand that he has to live constantly with bodyguards because of it.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

3. Comment #420131 by TIKI AL on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Great news. 2 of my favorite people. I don't suppose this will be televised, right?

I rented "Religulous" and passed it off to 6 neighbors including Mormons and Catholics before returning it.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

4. Comment #420133 by mordacious1 on September 29, 2009 at 11:12 pm

Bill Maher has some questionable opinions on certain issues, but he is spot on when it comes to religions and made up gods. Good for him to earn this award.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #420135 by HughCaldwell on September 29, 2009 at 11:17 pm

What's AAI? American Atheists something, I suppose.

Other Comments by HughCaldwell

6. Comment #420137 by ContainsCaffeine on September 29, 2009 at 11:19 pm

Maher's attitudes towards alt-med deserve criticism, but there is a proper forum for that (Like the forum on this page for instance!). Disrupting or protesting this award is silly. The award is for his work in the atheist community, and for that it is deserved.

Keep up the irreverence, but keep it up in a place and format that is constructive!

Other Comments by ContainsCaffeine

7. Comment #420138 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2009 at 11:19 pm

I wasn't going to post for a while, but I have been following the issue of the award to Maher recently. I had thought and hoped that it was some kind of mistake. I see it wasn't. I now see that Sam Harris was right when he talked about the problem with the label "atheist". It is a political label, not one based on rationalism. I refuse to support a generalised battle against religion, as the real battle should be for reason and science. Maher is a very poor supporter of either reason or science with his crank views.

If RichardDawkins.net is really about a campaign against religion, as against supporting reason, then I was wrong to register an account here. I am deeply disappointed that someone who uses their position as a celebrity to rubbish so much science is being promoted by this site, and given an award with Richard's name.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #420145 by Acumen on September 29, 2009 at 11:44 pm

I'm with Steve Zara, and would like to propose a comparison for your consideration:

"You don't need to get treatment from a doctor. Mainstream medicine is controlled by Big Pharma and poisons you. All you need to stay healthy is to get natural cures from alternative therapists."

"You don't need to get treatment from a doctor. Turning to medicine is showing a lack of trust in God and will endanger your soul. All you need to stay healthy is to trust in the Lord."

How, exactly, would the proponents of those two claims be any different? And why would you denounce one and give a free pass to the other?

Steve's got it dead on. Getting rid of religion won't do us any good if people just turn to homeopathy or quack treatments or astrology for comfort instead. Promotion of reason and science is the only way to solve the root of the problem that is irrational thinking, of which religion is only a symptom.

Other Comments by Acumen

9. Comment #420147 by Mango on September 29, 2009 at 11:47 pm

Steve,

The AAI and its mission is compatible with the RDF, but does not reflect the entirety of the foundation. I think that's where you went off the rails.

This website, as you know from reading the varied stories posted here, is about rebuking superstition as well as promoting science news and scientists' views and, above all, reason.

Other Comments by Mango

10. Comment #420148 by scarecroe on September 29, 2009 at 11:47 pm

Steve, you make it sound like Maher is anti-science. This may be true, I don't know. I would like to learn more. Can someone point me to some observations about Maher's condoning of anti-scientific alternative medicines?

Other Comments by scarecroe

11. Comment #420149 by gf1 on September 29, 2009 at 11:48 pm

‘Religulous’ wasn't very good either. And it used the same tactics (fake movie name, misrepresenting it's makers intent, etc) that people here have complained about so loudly with 'Expelled'.

Saying that, Maher is a comedian, and may just be misinformed about some medical matters. Has anyone seen him take part in a debate of any real length? If he's just been misled by some alternative claims, I don't see why he should be treated like a heretic.

Other Comments by gf1

12. Comment #420150 by Mango on September 29, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Acumen: Getting rid of religion won't do us any good if people just turn to homeopathy or quack treatments or astrology for comfort instead.

Exactly so. And Dr. Dawkins produced "The Enemies of Reason" to address this matter.

Other Comments by Mango

13. Comment #420151 by TIKI AL on September 29, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Hugh Caldwell @ 5:

I think the AAI that is giving the award is Atheist Alliance International.

But given Bill has a problem with flu shots it might be the American Association of Immunologists.

And since he also climbs mountains of intolerance, it could be the American Alpine Institute.

Oh crap, now you've got me confused.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

14. Comment #420152 by alaskansee on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 am

Zara,

Big part of the above article went into how it is possible to support people some of the time BUT NOT ALL OF THE TIME.

Not sure what isn't clear about this, I suspect you haven't voted for a while/forever?

I signed up on this .net to hear interesting views on science and other science related stuff. I for one am not about to throw the baby out with the bath water because of a link to this occurrence. I've always enjoyed your comments and would hate to lose you based on unrelated maters.

Seems someone was quite annoyed about links to Pharyngula too recently but again if we don't talk to people we mildly disagree with what about the people we totally disagree with?

Bill is funny and dislikes religion, Richard is not funny and dislikes religion. Bill is against marrage, Richard is married. I hope he will accept the award from a married man, ooh! Our paths cross sometimes with people who have come to the same place by very different means, don't leave us Steve.............

Other Comments by alaskansee

15. Comment #420153 by Duae Quartunciae on September 30, 2009 at 12:00 am

There would be better ways to recognize your appreciation of his film. The problem is that your criteria for the award are as follows:

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Bill Maher, as it stands at present, doesn't meet these requirements; specifically the advocacy of increased scientific knowledge.

The difficulty with people like Mr Maher is the same as the difficulty with creationists or advocates of "intelligent design". They don't actually engage the scientific issues or appear to understand how science actually works.

This selection devalues the award, and gives more support to the notion that much of the advocacy for atheism simply decides if people are rationalist only on the basis of their attitude to God, rather than actually being committed to reason and rationalism first, and letting atheism be a consequence.

Other Comments by Duae Quartunciae

16. Comment #420155 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:02 am

Richard Dawkins is the best supporter of reason and science alive today. His new book (which I have just finished reading) is a wonderful addition to his work, and his writing is better than ever.

I have no problem at all with his association with Christopher Hitchens (even though I disagree with much that Hitchens says), and I have no doubt that Richard's work with Bishop Harries in promoting the teaching of evolution wasn't valuable.

But in both cases, Richard was promoting reason.

But when you give an award, that is to the whole person, and the whole person of Maher frankly stinks when it comes to reason and science.

This is an unwise award, and will do much harm.

EDIT:
Comment #420153 by Duae Quartunciae

increased scientific knowledge

There is no doubt that Maher has failed in this.

Richard. If you read this, there is a chance for you to do a lot of good by refusing this award. Otherwise, you are helping promote damaging pseudo-science.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #420156 by alaskansee on September 30, 2009 at 12:03 am

Yes, yes but don't leave Steve.

Other Comments by alaskansee

18. Comment #420159 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:09 am

Comment #420156 by alaskansee

I won't call myself an atheist if Maher is going to be publicly identified as a celebrated example of what prominent atheists consider award-worthy.

I support science, and reason, passionately, and, of course, will continue to do so. But if the support of a position called "atheism" leads to awards to people like Maher, then count me out.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #420160 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 12:12 am

But Steve - Richard isn't giving it. Or if he is handing it over, then I presume it's just from the previous holder to the next one.
I thought that the award had been named after Richard (as the first recipient I presumed) but that the giving of it was decided by others.
I don't really see why this has to be such a big deal. If there's a problem, isn't it AAI's, rather than RD.net's?

Edit: Do we have to be so desperately serious? I'm happy for a bit of light heartedness and comedy to get a regular look-in.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

20. Comment #420162 by NewEnglandBob on September 30, 2009 at 12:15 am

15. Comment #420153 by Duae Quartunciae

Your comment is the most persuasive.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

21. Comment #420164 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:18 am

Comment #420160 by Sally Luxmoore

Josh has posted here that Richard is happy to go along with the award.

Edit: Do we have to be so desperately serious? I'm happy for a bit of light heartedness and comedy to get a regular look-in.

I'm afraid we have to be serious. Maher is rubbishing medical science. His quackery has to be exposed, and, I honestly feel, should not be supported in any way by those who stand for science and reason. Maher's views aren't abstract religious platitudes.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #420165 by alaskansee on September 30, 2009 at 12:21 am

Steve

I like one of the comments on the thread about chris hedges, he tries to lump all of us "atheists" together as if not believing in something makes us a group. The comment was, I paraphrase, "how can such anamorphose unstructured group ever be considered a homogeneous group"

Other Comments by alaskansee

23. Comment #420166 by mordacious1 on September 30, 2009 at 12:21 am

Here are the other winners...and no, Richard wasn't the first:

Past recipients
2003 — James Randi (inaugural award)
2004 — Ann Druyan
2005 — Penn and Teller
2006 — Julia Sweeney
2007 — Daniel Dennett
2008 — Ayaan Hirsi Ali
2009 — Bill Maher

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #420167 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:24 am

Comment #420160 by Sally Luxmoore

Sally - do you think it is appropriate for the finest living science writer and educator to have his name associated with Maher, who isn't even sure that vaccines work?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #420170 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 12:32 am

Steve -
It certainly makes me uncomfortable, when you put it like that!
But It's Maher's views on Religion and his very effective use of comedy to make his points that are the focus of this award, as far as I can tell.
It's not as if the award is in our gift, decided by a vote of all RD.net-ers...

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

26. Comment #420173 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:36 am

This isn't a small issue. Maher is a nut, and I'm done with Real Time after seeing his latest pro-alternative medicine rant. Again and again he comes down on the wrong side of the argument in regards to medicine. He genuinely believes, among other crazy things, that the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in a conspiracy to keep people sick (and therefore keep buying their products). He is opposed to vaccinations. He thinks that cancer treatments haven't improved at all in the past 50 years, and he thinks you can get locked up in the US for even talking about alternative cancer treatments. Being able to spread this rubbish on TV makes him positively dangerous.

I must say I'm disappointed about this award. I would hope that Richard, at the very least, makes it clear that he does not support these views, and in fact actively opposes them. Because they are the views of a paranoid, deluded, anti-science crackpot.

Other Comments by Fuller

27. Comment #420174 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 12:39 am

24. Comment #420167 by Steve Zara

do you think it is appropriate for the finest living science writer and educator to have his name associated with Maher, who isn't even sure that vaccines work?

Shouldn't it be upto the finest living science writer and educator to decide whether his name should be associated with Maher?

Other Comments by root2squared

28. Comment #420175 by aratina on September 30, 2009 at 12:39 am

I won't call myself an atheist if Maher is going to be publicly identified as a celebrated example of what prominent atheists consider award-worthy.

Oh come on. You've always known "atheist" had nothing to do with anything except no belief in a god. Why would you just now decide not to call yourself atheist over this flap when we've had countless prestigious atheists who were flat out bonkers for as far back as history has been recorded? If you really can't accept this award going to Maher, then don't join AAI (or cancel your membership if you have already joined), but don't act like being an atheist means you have to agree with AAI.

Other Comments by aratina

29. Comment #420177 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:42 am

Shouldn't it be upto the finest living science writer and educator to decide whether his name should be associated with Maher?

I'm not convinced Richard is aware of just how crazy Maher's views on medicine are. I have a feeling that if he did, he would not be comfortable associating with him.

Other Comments by Fuller

30. Comment #420179 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:43 am

Comment #420170 by Sally Luxmoore

You sum up why I am uncomfortable!

Richard Dawkins has, for decades, been for me the most eloquent exponent of reason. He really taught me about the excitement of science, and the humility of scientists.

Perhaps the most significant thing that he wrote, for me, was when he changed his mind about the handicap principle - when evidence and reason showed that he was wrong. Richard's description of that situation has been an inspiration to me.

So I can't understand an award in Richard's name which seems to me to be promoting a dogmatic position - pure atheism. I had hoped that Dawkins would be associated forever with going where the independent scientific evidence led, and that is certainly not something that Maher supports.

I totally support atheism, but only if it is the result of rational investigation. Imposed atheism, be it by politics, or culture, or even by following a comedian, is against rationality.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #420181 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 12:46 am

29. Comment #420177 by Fuller

It seems from what we've heard from Richard so far that he does not care what Maher's views on medicine are as far as this association of his name with the award goes. Obviously he is only considering Maher from the perspective of promoting atheism.

Other Comments by root2squared

32. Comment #420182 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:48 am

Comment #420175 by aratina

Oh come on. You've always known "atheist" had nothing to do with anything except no belief in a god. Why would you just now decide not to call yourself atheist over this flap when we've had countless prestigious atheists who were flat out bonkers for as far back as history has been recorded?

Indeed. Last year I gave up the term "atheism" until it seemed that identifying as "new atheist" was a useful gesture, as it seemed to annoy the right people.

But I'm not even going to be a New Atheist if Atheist is associated with anti-medicine cranks like Maher.

We need some new word, I think. Pro-reasonists?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #420183 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 12:50 am

I do understand what you're saying, Steve, but it's the fact that, as Josh says, Richard was not involved in the decision - that means that we should not get so worked up about it. That's my view anyway.
I don't see Richard being tainted by this, but maybe that's because I'm far more familiar with him than I am with Bill Maher. Maybe I also think that Richard's 'Brand' is too distinct to be altered by a very brief association with a comedian. Maybe I'm being too optimistic, I don't know.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

34. Comment #420185 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:51 am

It seems from what we've heard from Richard so far that he does not care what Maher's views on medicine are as far as this association of his name with the award goes. Obviously he is only considering Maher from the perspective of promoting atheism.

By that logic, Richard would be happy for this award to go someone who made a good movie promoting atheism, even if they also wrote a book that claimed to contain a natural cure for all cancers. I don't buy it.

Other Comments by Fuller

35. Comment #420186 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 12:54 am

We need some new word, I think. Pro-reasonists?

I've always been happy with rationalist..

Other Comments by Fuller

36. Comment #420187 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 12:54 am

Getting rid of religion won't do us any good if people just turn to homeopathy or quack treatments or astrology for comfort instead.

Just compare the number of wars and people killed because of religion with those affected by these other forms of quackery and you'll realize how absurd this statement is.

Even if one child is killed because their parents did not use modern medicine, we hear it in the news! The effects of things like homeopathy and astrology are nothing compared to the effects of religion.

I'm happy if people give up religion for astrology before they arrive at reason. A lot less people will suffer.

Other Comments by root2squared

37. Comment #420189 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 12:58 am

Comment #420183 by Sally Luxmoore

Fair enough, Sally.

But I think that someone should always be aware of how their name is being used, and Maher's anti-medicine stance has been widely commented on in the "rationalist community" for some time, indeed for years.

I am, to be honest, shocked and disappointed by Richard's endorsement of Maher. Once Richard had known of this, it would not have taken much research to discover Maher's position on vaccines, for example.

I am a pessimist. I think much harm will come of this endorsement. I hope I am wrong.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #420190 by Duae Quartunciae on September 30, 2009 at 12:58 am

I continue to be supportive of atheism without any qualification or hesitation.

That's not the same as supporting particular organizations.

My primary focus is reason and rational skepticism. Not all atheists have the same focus, and that's fine. To be an atheist you just have to disbelieve in God. There's no requirement for why you do so.

It is an obvious error, confusing cause and effect, to presume that all atheists are rational. So there's no reason at all to distance oneself from atheism just because there are prominent atheists who happen to be as irrational as all get out. You might want to distance yourself a bit from the AAI, and emphasize that they are a distinct organization with which you may disagree strongly on certain things.

The problem with this award is that it devalues the Richard Dawkins award. It makes it apparent that the real reason for the award is not as you would think from the stated award criteria. It is, apparently, more about being an atheist and fighting religion, rather than about being reasonable and supporting rationality.

Other Comments by Duae Quartunciae

39. Comment #420191 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 1:00 am

I'm happy if people give up religion for astrology before they arrive at reason. A lot less people will suffer.

But there's nothing inherently safer about astrology. I don't find it hard to imagine a scenario where, had human history taken a different course, various sects of astrologers are fighting each other over their own interpretations of stars. Or, say, Virgos being denied the same rights as non-Virgos etc.

Other Comments by Fuller

40. Comment #420192 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 1:03 am

I hope you're wrong too, Steve! (Sounds awful, but you know I mean that in the nicest possible way...)
It just shows that people who have the same interests at heart can still differ on how to achieve them. At the moment we are just spectators, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

41. Comment #420193 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 1:03 am

39. Comment #420191 by Fuller

Speculation. No evidence and completely divorced from current reality.

How many people do you know who have died because of astrology?

Other Comments by root2squared

42. Comment #420194 by jonny_eh on September 30, 2009 at 1:07 am

By Dawkins completely ignoring Maher's shameful promotion of the worst kind of pseudo-science, he is playing right into the hands of his opponents. People always say that Stalin was an atheist, and Dawkins responds along the lines that he was also a supporter of a dangerous ideology. The same should go for Maher. Would Dawkins be willing to be associated with an award given to Stalin? After all, being a famous atheist is all that matters!

To find out in detail why so many people are pissed off about this, see here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/is_bill_maher_really_that_ignorant_part_2.php

The fine folks at the Skeptics Guide to the Universe also cover this issue at length in their recent episode:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

Other Comments by jonny_eh

43. Comment #420195 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 1:10 am

Speculation. No evidence and completely divorced from current reality.

How many people do you know who have died because of astrology?

Yeah, I'm aware that it's speculation, but surely you see that my intent was to express the fact that any superstition has the potential to be dangerous, not just religion - because it's based on dogma and is not amenable to evidence. The point is that the focus should be on supporting reason from the bottom up, not just attacking one particular form of unreason.

Other Comments by Fuller

44. Comment #420197 by Reckless Monkey on September 30, 2009 at 1:14 am

Bill has thrown the baby out with the bathwater with Pharmaceuticals, some doctors have been paid off to push certain drugs. Drug companies have lied about the side effects of medication and in many case shown poor ethics. The mistake he makes is in assuming that Natural Medicine is any better. In spite of his views on this he's spent the last year almost every show criticising both sides of politics for not getting medical insurance in the states fixed so that everyone has cover. So clearly he's not completely against all of medical science. Let's not throw the baby out of the bathwater on him, I don't agree with him on a lot, but he talks a lot of sense on many issues, has open debates with people with many views and is very funny. He doesn't need to be perfect to be make people think and challenge the status quo.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

45. Comment #420198 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 1:16 am

Comment #420192 by Sally Luxmoore

Sally; I hope we are more than spectators. I hope that Richard might read what we are writing here, and get the message that although (speaking for myself, and I suspect, many others) he is an intellectual hero, this award is a big mistake.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #420199 by root2squared on September 30, 2009 at 1:19 am

43. Comment #420195 by Fuller

I agree with this

The point is that the focus should be on supporting reason from the bottom up, not just attacking one particular form of unreason.

However, my original point was

You are saying that any superstition has the potential to be dangerous. I agree. However, currently, religion is far far more harmful than any other form of quackery. I would even argue that since religion is the first thing that children are indoctrinated with, it also has an effect of suppressing critical thinking which later can lead to becoming susceptible to quackery.

And I pointed this out to support my position that

Other Comments by root2squared

47. Comment #420200 by LBraschi on September 30, 2009 at 1:19 am

For a long review of Maher's position about medicine, read:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1251

I've enjoyed very much Bill Maher since I knew about him. I like his show, and I think I share more or less his political bench.

Yet his statements as being against 'Western medicine', about 'vaccines are unsafe', and so on, have seriously damaged by opinion about him.

And is sad an ironic that so many 'rationalists' and 'atheists' do not simply care about the issue - behaving, for all practical purposes, as 'shruggies' who simply do not care. We ought to know better.

Other Comments by LBraschi

48. Comment #420202 by Sally Luxmoore on September 30, 2009 at 1:25 am

Comment #420198 by Steve Zara

Well, I agree - he's been an intellectual hero of mine since 1976 and that's not likely to change any time soon.
However, If Richard sees this (in time) which he may well not - he must be horrendously busy and heaven knows how he deals with all the jet lag etc... I still don't see what he can do about it.
I think plain good manners (which Richard certainly has) will dictate that he does nothing at all. It's too late.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

49. Comment #420203 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2009 at 1:27 am

Comment #420199 by root2squared

By your reasoning, shouldn't Richard be happily promoting Anglicanism because it is less harmful than Islam?

How about a Dawkins award for the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #420204 by Fuller on September 30, 2009 at 1:28 am

root2squared - I'm happy with that. I was just being a bit pedantic I guess.

EDIT - also, what Steve said.

Other Comments by Fuller

Reload Comments | Back to Top