1. Comment #25318 by Magpie on March 12, 2007 at 3:35 am

Nice debate! Interesting fact. David Watson who organised the debate, is the grandfather of my housemate. No, she's not a creationist.

Other Comments by Magpie

2. Comment #25319 by glittergulch on March 12, 2007 at 4:20 am

Ooh, brilliant! I have a CD-Rom of this. I highly recommend it from start to finish, especially since Dr Dawkins doesn't debate creationists anymore (easy to see why!) There are many bizarre and hilarious moments. Also, for those of us on the western side of the Atlantic some of the pomp and tradition is quite interesting.

Other Comments by glittergulch

3. Comment #25324 by deviljelly on March 12, 2007 at 6:00 am

The last section is quite funny, mainly knob jokes, and a very early reference to the stupidity of Boris Johnson.

Other Comments by deviljelly

4. Comment #25326 by Logicel on March 12, 2007 at 6:24 am

This debate happened around twenty years ago, and though there is some interesting and humorous aspects associated with its age, all in all, it was depressing, though the motion for the doctrine of creation being more valid than the theory of evolution was voted against.

Dawkins was calmly brilliant, focusing on what a big, sumptuous, worthy-of-the-wonder-of-the-universe theory evolution is, while mentioning that Creation doctrine is petty, small, and insulting to any notion of a God worthy of its name.

Twenty years later, we are hearing similar drivel on the threads at this site from theists who are unable to grasp a bigger theory based on substantial evidence, and instead continue to cling to a threadbare doctrine with no substantial evidence.

I have just started my first reading of Dawkins Unweaving The Rainbow,, and it is a captivating, spellbinding read because I am learning science easily and with enjoyment while my wonder remains intact. Not an easy task to accomplish, but Dawkins has. Kudos.

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #25329 by okani3000 on March 12, 2007 at 6:38 am

It's incredible how the real scientists have defended and protected against the constant surges of creationists, through out the years. And seems like the battles will go on for a long while longer. I see why Prof. Dawkins and the other scientists don't, anymore, give formal forums to the creationists - the argument doesn't go anywhere.

I agree with glittergulch, and love the jabs in the debate, plus the pomp & tradition is very interesting. Also, I am even more thoroughly convinced, Professor Dawkins is a master speaker and debator - what talent.

Glad he, and the other scientists, are on our side. "...keep on keepin' on!"

Other Comments by okani3000

6. Comment #25336 by Carl S. Richardson on March 12, 2007 at 8:25 am

1986, the year before I was born and it seems the creationist arguments haven't progressed much, if at all. The same web of lies was still been swung 20 years ago and from listening to you can really see that intelligent design shares the same worn out empty notions. You'd think the creationists would at least be able to come up with something remotely new or that at least it would have sunk in by now that evolution is not a theory of chance.

I think you can really tell how weak the creationist groups are with their inability to accept that natural selection is not random -- Their willingness to go on spreading lies despite been taught time and time again that that's not how it works, is just despicable. It really makes you wonder if the advocates even believe in creation or are just following it as some sort of big money maker.

It's funny, I wonder if the debaters for the motion, went home still holding the view that evolution was the straw man they made it out to be. You'd think after the good arguments but forward by Dawkins and the rest would have sunk in but alas people like the creationist are either immune from reason or, as I've said, out to make money from a gullible public.

If you can put forward arguments that sound scientific you could make a good living on the creationist lecture circuit, it'd a sure fire way to make money and you don't even have to believe it!

The amusing thing was in Edgar Andrews's speech where he claimed science can't answer 4 questions and then claimed theology could. He then failed to give any reason why the theological answers were correct. It seems the difference goes something like this:

Science: We're working on it
Theology: We can't know so here's a made up explanation

After centuries of been wrong you'd really think theist would learn their lesson by now that the limits of science can not be determined by our inabilities of the current day.

The most annoying part wasn't surprisingly the creationist argument themselves but namely one of the creationists, Theodore Wilson. I don't know how Dawkins must have felt but Wilson's "Doctrine [bang!] of [bang!] Creation [bang!]" actually had me shouting at the computer for him to shut up.

But anyway you can understand why Dawkins is now unwilling to engage in debates with creationists and honestly I don't blame him.

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

7. Comment #25338 by wendelin on March 12, 2007 at 8:40 am

Oh wow. This brings back so many memories of varsity debating, I'm now realising I really miss it! But I wonder why they're using Australs style debating in Britain, where I've heard it's almost always British Parliamentary style?

Other Comments by wendelin

8. Comment #25340 by glittergulch on March 12, 2007 at 8:47 am

It would be great if Dr Dawkins would post some thoughts on this classic event.

Other Comments by glittergulch

9. Comment #25341 by deviljelly on March 12, 2007 at 8:59 am

For fun:

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/search/search.aspx?cfpt=&q=atheist&x=25&y=13&cfpt2=&copt=&source=searchBox

I like this bumper sticker

"Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill People"

and the "COGITO, ERGO DEUS NON EST" t-shirts

If anyone wants to correct the Latin check this out first.

http://www.holysmoke.org/hs01/latin.ath

Other Comments by deviljelly

10. Comment #25342 by LookToWindward on March 12, 2007 at 9:05 am

Listening to this event confirmed my opinion of Oxford Union members as puerile narcissistic loud-mouthed sociopaths. With small dicks. Much like the politicians they usually go on to become.

And I am exceedingly pleased to have this affirmation of my decision not to join the Union (nor, in fact, its lesser, if slightly less hacky version in Cambridge). Go me!

Other Comments by LookToWindward

11. Comment #25343 by jesus_christ_himself on March 12, 2007 at 9:41 am

Does the Oxford Union always have so many (bad) cock jokes?

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

12. Comment #25358 by oskorei on March 12, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Thank you! This is a fascinating historical document; I am amazed how little the creationist arguments have changed since then. I guess nothing at all can be done about certain kinds of arrogant ignorance..

Other Comments by oskorei

13. Comment #25360 by Bremas on March 12, 2007 at 1:58 pm

re oskorei post 12
I agree, after listening to that, and how little the arguements have changed, there seems to be no point in debating creationists.
Let's hope the fence sitters can be convinced to read a book.

On a brighter note, The God Delusion, after spending months in the basement of my local Barnes and Noble, is suddenly prominently displayed in several places throughout the store.

Other Comments by Bremas

14. Comment #25365 by jamesstephenbrown on March 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I though it was hilarious when Dawkins mentioned the contention that the miraculous ordering process of fossils were from the biblical flood. What occured to me was that all prehistoric fish would have escaped, because of course fish can't drown! They wouldn't have even been in upper levels let alone the lower levels beneath all mammals and land dwelling reptiles. Its honestly laughable.

Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown

15. Comment #25376 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm

In American made movies, the hero is usually an American. In reality, the American is most often the asshole. I wonder why?

Other Comments by Yorker

16. Comment #25377 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 6:23 pm

4. Comment #25326 by Logicel

Dawkins books are best for the science of evolution. But for a person wishing to study and learn the scientific method, then I would recommend Carl Sagan; his "Demon Haunted World" is arguably beyond comparison. I think it should be made compulsory reading for all.

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #25378 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 6:30 pm

I liked Maynard-Smith, he was an honest and insightful man; he is sorely missed.

Other Comments by Yorker

18. Comment #25395 by davyB on March 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Dr. Dawkins has gotten a lot quicker over the years. He stepped on his own toes a few times, like when he said people should vote against the proposition because if it passed, the press would misinterpret the result.

Other Comments by davyB

19. Comment #25404 by RickM on March 13, 2007 at 1:04 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Wilder-Smith (Part 7) actually prove, in his convoluted way, that virgin birth is impossible?

If we except the voting as a statistical sample (115 for, 198 against), we are able to determine that 63 percent of Oxford students are able to critically identify bull shit.

Other Comments by RickM

20. Comment #25406 by Logicel on March 13, 2007 at 1:19 am

Yorker, if you have not yet read Dawkins review of Sagan's Demon Haunted World, perhaps you may find it interesting:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1996-febsaganreview.shtml

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #25407 by Lord Asriel on March 13, 2007 at 1:20 am

I am amazed how little the creationist arguments have changed since then.

The absence of development in their argument struck me too.

I think it illustrates well that it is not a scientific debate they are interested in and that they are lacking real arguments. I have never experienced a scientific debate so inert that arguments do not progress for over 20 years (or should I say 2000 years?)!

Interestingly, the only important change (from 'creationism' to 'ID') occurred not to improve the argument but was legally inspired (and still the arguments didn't change much).

I was surprised by the high number of favourable votes. Was it just due to the way the two sides mobilised or is it in any way representative for time and place of the debate?

Other Comments by Lord Asriel

22. Comment #25408 by Logicel on March 13, 2007 at 1:24 am

Yorker, Dawkins does a splendid job of explaining electromagetic and sound waves in Unweaving The Rainbow. Though grounded in the scientific method because of my biological/biochemical/medical background, I have always found physics difficult to understand. Dawkins significantly widened the crack of that door for me in this book so I can in this middle-aged stage of my life comprehend/see the basics which were hidden previously.

Other Comments by Logicel

23. Comment #25422 by Yorker on March 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

22. Comment #25408 by Logicel

Logicel,

I was aware that Dawkins liked Sagan's work.

My first career was electronics engineering so I have some expertise in electromagnetic radiation, I can confirm Dawkins did a fair job in UTR. Glad your getting grips with physics, most people's difficulties lie in the fear of it, approaching it from the fun angle is very helpful.

Incidentally, a few days ago I listened to a speech Sagan made two years before he died; it was remarkably prophetic, almost 100% accurate in the predictions he made about the current situation. I'm about to buy his new book, edited and released by his wife, Annie Druyan.

Other Comments by Yorker

24. Comment #25429 by George Dickeson on March 13, 2007 at 4:15 am

I thought that Dawkins' referring to the supporting side's other publishings was not really in the spirit of debate. Particularly when he mentions the fact that Edgar Andrews is a young-earth creationist. Doing so was nothing more than an ad hominem, since Andrews makes no reference to such a position in his speech.

John M Smith was the highlight. Particularly his rebuttal to Arthur Smith's comments about 3/4 of the way through Part 8.

Many thanks for posting this!

Other Comments by George Dickeson

25. Comment #25430 by Skeptic Jim on March 13, 2007 at 4:41 am

Who was that pompous fool who stood up in protest suggesting that atheists shouldn't be allowed to speak?

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

26. Comment #25435 by Habalabam on March 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

I'm so frustrated by this form of debate.

Can somebody who listened through give me a rundown of the following:
* What DID the creationists get away with?
* What could they PRETEND to get away with?

If the creationist really got his nose grounded, I'll listen for mere entertainment value. If he in all unlikelyhood raised any form of relevant objection to anything, then I'll listen. The normal gibberish has no information or entertainment value.

Other Comments by Habalabam

27. Comment #25444 by glittergulch on March 13, 2007 at 6:40 am

I've listened to it a couple of times and I'm pretty sure that this is what the creationists are saying:

1) Creationism is a doctrine and evolution is a theory and doctrine trumps theory.
2) One species cannot spontaneously change into another.
3) Science will never - I mean never, ever, ever - answer any questions of any importance, ever.
4) Ever.
5) No one has shown any evidence of evolution, ever.
6) DNA code can't ever be created out of random chaos and therefore the origin of life will NEVER ever ever be understood.
7) A skull was found in some coal. Therefore, checkmate.
8) Evolution means that two similar wooden debating dispatch boxes share a common ancestor.
9) Creationism doesn't explain HOW the world works but WHY it exists.
10) Ooga booga.
11) Ugga Wugga.

Honestly, their comments make no sense at all. Even so, the debate is great to listen to.

Other Comments by glittergulch

28. Comment #25445 by WilliamLP on March 13, 2007 at 6:46 am

A point that seems to always come up in these debates is that a creationist will claim that similarities in DNA between species are evidence of a common designer, not of common descent. I'm aware that the molecular similarities and differences observed are exactly what would be suggested by common descent, and not at all what would be indicative of a common designer, but I was disappointed that Dawkins wasn't able to refute this succinctly and effectively here. In debates like this, it seems a lot of scientists don't address this point well, in a way that would be compelling to a non-biologist.

Other Comments by WilliamLP

29. Comment #25463 by Richard Dawkins on March 13, 2007 at 10:44 am

24. Comment #25429 by George Dickeson on March 13, 2007 at 4:15 am "I thought that Dawkins' referring to the supporting side's other publishings was not really in the spirit of debate. Particularly when he mentions the fact that Edgar Andrews is a young-earth creationist. Doing so was nothing more than an ad hominem, since Andrews makes no reference to such a position in his speech."

It is precisely BECAUSE Andrews avoided mentioning his young earth creationism that it was necessary for me to do so. He was doing a typically duplicitous thing, cleaning up his act for a sophisticated (actually not so sophisticated as it turned out) Oxford audience. If he had changed his mind since writing the Young Earth book, that would be different. But he had not changed his mind. He was dishonestly pretending to be less of a wingnut than he really was.

Later that evening, at the drinks after the debate, Maynard Smith had a blazing row with Edgar Andrews, because of his dishonesty. It was the only time I ever saw that beloved man go positively RED with anger, and it was a splendid sight.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

30. Comment #25465 by mintcheerios on March 13, 2007 at 11:12 am

I'd like to have heard that.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

31. Comment #25473 by RickM on March 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm

"Who was that pompous fool who stood up in protest suggesting that atheists shouldn't be allowed to speak?"

Skeptic Jim,

My take on this guy was that he was an athiest taking the other side, speaking in raucous 18th century tones. A spoof. He also spoke in Part 9.

Other Comments by RickM

32. Comment #25475 by RickM on March 13, 2007 at 2:49 pm

"Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter"

For laughs, see:

http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm

Other Comments by RickM

33. Comment #25479 by cagliost on March 13, 2007 at 3:22 pm

At 14:03 into the recording of Richard Dawkins speaking, there is a glitch. Does anyone else have this problem?

Other Comments by cagliost

34. Comment #25485 by seals on March 13, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I noticed that too, I thought maybe someone was changing tapes but after only 14 minutes?

Very atmospheric anyhow, I had no idea at that time about creationists.

Other Comments by seals

35. Comment #25502 by glittergulch on March 13, 2007 at 8:52 pm

It's 14:03 into that MP3 but lord knows how far into the tape itself. The "dings" almost certainly indicate tape changes. Whoever encoded the digital audio files surely put them there so that listeners would know that a change had occurred and not that speakers were edited nefariously or were unable to complete sentences properly.

Other Comments by glittergulch

36. Comment #25519 by Richard Dawkins on March 14, 2007 at 1:34 am

I am quite relieved to learn that there was a tape change in my speech. When I listened to the recording, I seriously wondered whether I was suffering from false memory syndrome (which is a very real phenomenon as Elizabeth Loftus has shown). I have a very clear memory that, during my speech, Edgar Andrews made MANY REPEATED attempts to persuade the President to stop me reading from his book. His book embarrassed him because its naive Young Earth Creationism gave the lie to such philosophical and scientific sophistication as he pretended to in his own speech. Yet, according to this recording, he made only one attempt to stop me and one additional interruption. I now suspect that the repeated appeals to the President must have occurred during the time it took to change the tape.
I suppose it is too much to hope that there is another recording out there? Or else somebody else who was present at the debate and can provide an independent memory to mine?
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

37. Comment #25566 by glittergulch on March 14, 2007 at 5:55 am

Dr. Dawkins: If you want to read a bit of the history of the recordings, here's the website where I got my physical copy of the CD-ROM a while back: http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/oxford_union_debate.htm (It seems to be a religious site but the guy was very nice when I ordered the CD and I believe him about the edits. Although I have no evidence. ;) )

And here are his comments on the edits:
"The original tapes began with about 20 minutes of Oxford Union business dealing with a motion to expel Major Robin Sanderson from the Union. This section, which contains a quite humorous speech by Major Sanderson coming immediately before the debate, has been deleted. After Professor Maynard-Smith's speech, there was an intermission of a number of minutes and the tape was left running. I'm not sure you would want to listen to a background hum of conversation and chairs and tables being pushed around, so have deleted this section also. These are the only editing changes. A very small amount of Oxford Union business occurred at one or two other points during the debate and they have all been left in.

Also...the original recording was done on audiotape and unfortunately the tape had to be turned over or changed at certain points. Thus a small amount of recording time was lost. My tapes for some reason have about an extra sentence of recording at each of these points than the AIG copy. I have inserted a 'ding' at the change points to indicate lost recording time."

So it seems that there is another tape but that it actually contains a little less text. Also, it seems to be owned by a group called "AIG" which google tells me is "Answers in Genesis." Yikes.

It sounds like the original tapes belonged to a guy named David CC Watson. Do you know who that is?

Obviously I wasn't there at the time but the amount of time lost on the recording seems very short to me: Every edit catches the speakers still covering the same material. Is it possible that his post-debate protests blended in with your memories of the debate?

I'm not familiar with the rules of traditional debate, but from a purely informational standpoint I'm glad you outed his young earth beliefs. If debaters can blatantly lie about their standings then what's the point? This isn't high school debate team where you're assigned a position for practice, whether you believe it or not. These speakers were chosen for their expertise and their views and for one of them to lie about where he stands on the issues being discussed is ridiculous. I definitely guffawed when you read those passages.

Other Comments by glittergulch

38. Comment #25673 by sane1 on March 14, 2007 at 4:36 pm

RD: Now I see better why you don't engage in debates like this. Such a debate is necessarily non-scientific and gives nonsense a seemingly equal footing.

Other Comments by sane1

39. Comment #26110 by BT Murtagh on March 17, 2007 at 2:25 am

10. Comment #25342 by LookToWindward on March 12, 2007 at 9:05 am: And I am exceedingly pleased to have this affirmation of my decision not to join the Union (nor, in fact, its lesser, if slightly less hacky version in Cambridge). Go me!

Yes, but isn't it a pity that the debates thereby lacked your incisive insights and devastating rhetoric?

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

40. Comment #26112 by BT Murtagh on March 17, 2007 at 2:50 am

Although I think I understand Prof. Dawkins's reasons for no longer debating creationists, I think he did the larger debate a service by doing so this time. It's a dirty job but every once in a while someone has to do it, lest the idiots in opposition gain credulity by default.

That's one reason I am so glad to see so many passionate and well-argued books on atheism gaining prominence in the marketplace' _The God Delusion_'s success has had the happy side effect of directing my attention to this site and to a number of other Dawkins books I had overlooked.

Had Professor Dawkins refused the call to express his views so widely my own life would have been considerably diminished. Thank you, Professor Dawkins, for many hours of enjoyable reading, and for the thoughts provoked and discussions enabled by your work.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

41. Comment #26678 by J-Dubs on March 21, 2007 at 4:56 am

hey guys,

check out this guy William Lane Craig, personally I view him as the best in the business..

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/

Peace out

J-Dubs

Other Comments by J-Dubs

42. Comment #28112 by phatmeat on March 28, 2007 at 4:06 am

The links to the audio files don't seem to be working any longer. I would love to listen to them once they are working again.

Other Comments by phatmeat

43. Comment #30231 by zcqsc41 on April 7, 2007 at 9:22 am

Can someone get the links fixed for these audio files?!?!

Other Comments by zcqsc41

44. Comment #30485 by Dedamraz on April 8, 2007 at 7:42 am

The files are still here, the links are a bit off, probably because of auto-generating system.

You just have to remove .nyud.net:8080 part from the link path and start the download manually.

So for example
http://richarddawkins.net.nyud.net:8080/audio/1986-Oxford_Union_Debate/5-Peter-Ross-New-College.mp3
should actually be:
http://richarddawkins.net/audio/1986-Oxford_Union_Debate/5-Peter-Ross-New-College.mp3

(right click, properties to display address, copy the link in address bar, remove .nyud.net:8080, enter; browser will ask what to do; save to disk)

Cheers.

Other Comments by Dedamraz

45. Comment #34482 by konquererz on April 24, 2007 at 7:46 am

Man, was RD ever patient in how many questions he took. He took more questions that anyone else. Thats likely because he gave more thought provoking fact than anyone else.

Other Comments by konquererz

46. Comment #47965 by JimmyT on June 6, 2007 at 6:39 am

Hi,

I would love to listen to these files but the links don't seem to work! Is it me or is it them?

Thanks

Other Comments by JimmyT

47. Comment #48129 by Robert Maynard on June 6, 2007 at 5:54 pm

It was stirring to hear that blowhard douchebag in the crowd declare that evolutionists were communists, and that atheists should not be allowed to speak in the debate - the poor guy he accused had to distance himself from atheism just to keep speaking.
I was also amazed to hear Richard Dawkins, speaking a year after I was born, mentioning The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter. This laughable document is still online, and can be found at this address:

<http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder.htm>

Strangely enough, one of this sites resident trolls devolved challenged me to critique its section on radiometric dating only a month ago. Learning of its yellowed obsolescence only makes me angrier, and my rebuttal seems even more futile.

The more things change..

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

48. Comment #71453 by Leonni Andretti on September 18, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Just out of curiousity I decided, after listening to the debate and reading the comments, that I would check to see if Answers in Genesis website had a link or recording. They don't but they did answer my enquiry about where I could find it.

They answered as such "The 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews matches the descriptionof the debate on Richard Dawkin's website, but with the titles removed. Here's the link http:/ etc....... Kind regards in Christ."

Touche!!

P.S. Anyone feeling down or depressed should visit the website, I had it on my favourates list long before reading Dawkins books, always makes me laugh and brightens up my day.

Other Comments by Leonni Andretti

49. Comment #71988 by Veronique on September 20, 2007 at 4:43 am

Thanks Leonni for your comment that directed me to these audios:-). I missed them in March!

Great fun and great boringness. Nothing in this argument has really changed. Thank whatever that I am not depressed. Life just goes on. I was surprised by the applauding for the creationist side. Maybe everyone was just being polite and clapping everyone indiscriminately. Very British and possibly very 1986.

Not so now. I understand why evolutionary biologists like RD no longer debate the creationists. There is no point. They have no real idea about the scientific method without pathetically passing the uncertainty of science through their certainty principle that is usually called rose coloured glasses and an ultimately uncritical belief in their holy book/bible.

I liked RD's reiterated comment that Darwin's theory is big enough to encompass our understanding of the universe and the slow, gradual change through Darwin's theory of natural selection that underlies his theory of evolution. I loved that he said literal belief in the bible was actually adopting a small theory that couldn't address the bigger questions of the universe. I can't understand why modern people can't see that religious dogma holds at its centre a geocentric view of the universe and, in particular, a middle-eastern geography that takes no account of the rest of the planet. All it does is describe a fantastical and spurious 'history' of a tiny bit of a tiny planet in an enormously large universe. It is mind-bogglingly crazy to believe in something so ridiculously parochial as any of the Abrahamic religions as anything other than man made as comfort and control.

Arthur Wilde was the most incredibly confused speaker for the motion. Left, right, left, right. 50/50 – how could he get it all so wrong? Pompous ass!! Theodore Wilson was appalling. I loathed his table thumping and screeching. You know, the more I shout the more I have credibility. Very embarrassing for any debater to behave in that manner!

Maynard-Smith was just wonderful. His reference to the prediction ability of science was gorgeous. His exposition on the grubbiness of creationism was terrific. He was quite right. Creationists search through scientific literature to find the 'ah has' with which to beat science over the head. They never accept that science can point the way to a comprehensive theory.

Thanks again, it's good to go back to some of these articles.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

50. Comment #77944 by glittergulch on October 11, 2007 at 7:45 am

In case someone needs a fresh link, it's all here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QHKN1ZHU

Other Comments by glittergulch