Adult artist, animator and programmer, TB is an avid fan of the Furry Genre.
Age 39, Female
IT
University of Utah
Las Vegas, NV
Joined on 11/11/04
Posted by TerdBurgler - April 26th, 2011
I went unscouted again. It's irritating and it's really hard for me to keep caring. At this rate, Newgrounds will merely be a site I check as an after-thought. There may be days to weeks in delay before I check this place for uploading art. I'm just sick of dealing with the crap.
-TB
dude your stuff is great
Well I hope for the best for you and hope you will be scouted one day until then I hope you keep on drawing and don't let anyone give you shit about your work.
Sincerely :
Awsomegamer123
don't leave my furry friend
don't leave my furry friend dont
Scouting is NG's other way for security too ya know. They have a lot of ways for that.
Andd on a further note, don't get irritated at NG for reenforcing rules. Try posting Furry Porn on Google+, Google+ will get you thrown in jail for it on a moments notice if they have reason to(And I was responsible for getting rid of and getting people arrested in a Community posting REAL Child Porn on Google+. I made sure they got arrested and did sting-operations on them to get that result).
Further more, Google+ teamed with me and some friends with my "Anti-Porn and Internet Safety Squad" community, so basically unless you flame half of Google+, we can't get banned if we are acting in a civil manner about it basically.
Responsible for getting around 500 accounts banned and around 25-33 communities banned on Google+ as well with all that said. Just know the screwed up Child Porn and Rape RP's and all that bull DID start from Porn. Just like I say to anyone else: 'if anyone wants to make a difference in the world, find the root cause of the problem/issue. Not it's effect."
Well, much of the original scouting system was flawed. If any user was banned for any reason, all the people they scouted were immediately unscouted. I had no power over who scouted me or the content they posted. I often didn't know them and was just happy to get scouted. This was also the time when no pornography was allowed and I abided by the rule. The people who scouted me may not have and as a result, I would get dropped at no fault of my own. When the pornographic content restriction was lifted, I began to post it here. I never have, nor would I post pornographic content on Google+ or Facebook. They have strict policies against that and no filtering system to prevent it from reaching minors. Adult material has a time and a place and should only be posted on appropriate websites. And there is NEVER a time for real child pornography. No child should ever be exploited like that and no monster should ever force their adult desires on an innocent child. I applaud you for ending those groups.
However, claiming that sexual abuse on minors starts with pornography is not statistically accurate. It's propaganda. Just because someone views pornography and then abuses children does not mean that pornography caused this behavior. It's the same flawed logic that caused people to call weed a gateway drug- a conclusion that has been disproven time and time again. You can't over-simplify a complex social issue and ignore facts to wage war on something you don't like. You may as well try to outlaw pickup trucks because gay-beating racists almost always drive trucks.
I forgot in my last post: Actually, the rate increased dramatically. In 2008 it was reported there was over 600,000 rape cases in the U.S alone. An increase from the 102,000 yearly in 1990 to nearly six times as much. I originally thought it was about 60,000 a year. I researched to find what the FBI reported in for the U.S. So you can't use that on me.
Porn only temporarily stopped the rape. Why? Because people had something to do that to rather than other people. However, every psychologist WILL tell you that: "Due to their viewing of such content, this promotes their own sexuality and in turn a degrade in control over ones own sexual desires. And because of this, the more of an addict one becomes to porn, the higher the potential they will attempt rape."
I suggest you restudy.
And for this post:
If you applaud me so much about what I did, then why post the same things that caused Child Porn to be in the first place? Child Porn didn't pop up out of no where, something had to start it. Thus why I am against porn in general, due to what was the root cause of it.
If people view Porn in psychological standards, yes that means it's easily branched to something else. If someone's sexuality and desires were promoted enough, they will seek out other sources once that single source is NOT enough anymore. Nor did I ever hear any propaganda about it. I did my research, free from what others opinions were on it entirely. I only trusted MD, Psychological, Organization, and sites outside of the U.S. Why do I ignore U.S. .gov sites? Because it always has some form of bias in 90% of what they say in their sites.
And with your last example, that was just a circumstantial thing to use. Not something that can't be ruled out by circumstance alone.
Uh... where are you getting this 600,000 number? You claim to have gotten it from the FBI but I just checked the FBI'S annual report and in 2008, there were 89,000 rapes- the lowest it's been in 20 years! https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html
You really, REALLY need to check your sources. Because that bit about what psychologists would say is incredibly out-dated. Like, Freudian out-dated. It's the same logic people used to claim that violent video games made people more violent. Surely they believe that if one watches that subject matter, it must have a direct correlation with their behavior, right? Well, it doesn't. It has been proven time and time again- and if you still believe that then you just don't understand modern psychology. I find the subject of human sexuality fascinating. I studied it extensively at university, as did my partner and I would be happy to discuss the subject with you if you're willing to have a sensible discussion.
Because most reputable social scientists will tell you that most rape cases are not the result of sexual desire. It's a common misconception. The large majority of rape cases are driven by violence, a means of asserting power or control over the victim. The motivation is shockingly similar to the mindset found in murderers. Furthermore, consumption of pornographic material or even sexual gratification at home has no statistical significance. A single man who views porn daily is no more likely to rape than a married man who doesn't view any. This conflicts with most people preconceptions but the cold, hard facts support it. Rape is far more of a SOCIAL problem, a lingering, sexist view that men should be applauded for their sexual exploits and that women should act sexually reserved but secretly 'want it'. It's the oxymoron of women and the blind eye turned towards male sexual predators that is the biggest contributor to rape.
And the whole subject of pedophilia is very complex and truly fascinating in a serial-killer kind of way. Like, it's fascinating with how fucked up it is. Blaming porn is just completely missing the mark. It's FAR more complicated than that.
I ask you to consider bias in your sources because just the large majority of your points are based on out-dated science and just plain wrong information. When you read an article that cites a study, be sure to check who conducted the study and when. You may be surprised when you see where it came from- assuming the article is cited at all. A lot of people continue to use studies conducted in the 60s and 70s as modern evidence or present information gathered by The American Christian Alliance, Mothers Against Obscene Content or other very bias sources. The problem these days is that ANYBODY can submit an article and make a claim without any academic accreditation. Doctors like Phil and Os can get on television and spout some very wrong information and be considered credible. And a random editor with no background in a subject can get their thoughts on the Huffington Post.
But I really doubt you'll be changing your opinion on this. You sound pretty dug-in.
"Here's the math. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)--there is an average of 293,066 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year"
That's what I pull up right now. But if I could search what I did last time(If I could remember) it did say 600k before.
And no, actually, Psychologists would understand it better. Without psychologists, we wouldn't be able to predict and tell where criminals would go off to when trying to capture them. Have to get in their head to find them.
Funny, Porn took a bad toll on both me and my friends. It's not a "Proven" thing that it doesn't situate bad behavior nor good. However, time and time again I always make my point quickly. Especially to friends when they posted porn all it did was get people to "Like" them for the Porn. Not even friends at all to them. He even tested that and not one cared about what he was doing to himself.
So you can keep that "Proven" crap to yourself. You can't link any sources nor proof against me on that, because there is none TO link. Heck, while you make that and we argue with this, guess what on a side note, the whole "Story of Noah" deal, people said no scientific proof: I beg to differ www.viewzone.com/noahx.html
Learn to start questioning everything, because you are really oblivious and only seem to trust sources that have plenty of bias. How's about the fact that the government lied about how often cancer happens, and the fact that they had a cure for it for the past 10 year's but never use it? Just saying.
And hate to break it to you again: But it's actually only 12% of rape cases that are for power/control. The other 88% are for sexual desires of some form, shape, or way.
And have you ever once noticed deep enough into porn hm? I used to be a former porn addict and I'll tell you right now, 80% of porn shows the girl as a f***ing sex object. Where the heck have you been if you've missed that hm?
Well there's your problem, mate. You're comparing two very different numbers. One is the actual reported number of sexual assaults by the FBI and the other is the estimated number of crimes by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The BJS conducts a survey of 48,000 or so called the NCVS to determine crime rates, including unreported crimes- and since rape is commonly unreported, the numbers are very different. Now, you just got some quick stats from the report. I read it. If you had read it, you would have read this: "For both students and nonstudents ages 18 to 24, the 2013 rates of rape and sexual assault were not significantly different from their respective rates in 1997."
The numbers across the board were all supporting this. Aside from a 1-2% wavering from year to year, rape never saw any sharp increases or decreases. When I say you should check your sources, part of that is reading them. It does reveal a concerning trend though. Despite rape rates remaining constant, report rates are decreasing. This supports what I said last time: that the biggest problem with rape is a social issue. People continue raping with veritable impunity, knowing that they have a four in five chance of getting away with it scott free! We need to stop blaming the victims, we need to treat rape as what it is: a serious crime. We need a criminal justice system that fully pursues every case and treats the victims with care and compassion and the perpetrators like violent criminals. Placing the blame on an unrelated issue is just distracting the discussion from the real problem.
Because we know porn isn't the issue. It's already laid out before us. It's not even about opinions and theories anymore, it's just cold, hard facts. We know that pornographic consumption has increased by leaps and bounds over the past twenty years. Higher rates of people are viewing porn and the quantity they are viewing has increased as well. If porn DID cause higher rates in sexual assault and rape, we would see an increase to match this consumption. But we didn't. The FBI reported decreases in this time frame a the BJS reported even levels. I even checked the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to look at Sexual Harassment rates and they have been steadily decreasing for the past decade. And these numbers are just a continuation of what I observed when I was writing 30 page reports on this subject for my Human Sexuality and Impact of Mass Media classes eight years ago. I would like to say that consumption of porn would decrease these levels, scratching the itch so to say so desires can be expressed at appropriate times instead of being pent up and coming out in deviant ways- but the evidence doesn't support that claim. It has no ground to stand on. From crime numbers, harassment numbers and porn consumption numbers, the correlation is simply this: they are inconclusive. Not statistically significant. The simple answer is that there is no real correlation between viewing sexual content and enacting sexual crime, exactly how it was found that video game violence and movie violence had no effect on if you were going to become a violent criminal.
I'm not gonna argue psychology with you as the soft sciences are full of subtle nuance and no one theory is absolutely true. There are those that are more likely to occur but everyone has an anecdotal story to the contrary. I'm sorry your friend had a bad experience but you can't expect to just make friends from drawing. Fan friends are fleeting. People who just want to use you for art are as common as stories of doing work for the 'exposure'.
And I do question. I'm questioning the Noah thing you sent me and there are lots of holes. It seems that there was definitely a wooden structure found there that is around 4800 years old. But rather than take it for granted that it's confirmation of a biblical boat, I ask questions and refer to scientific evidence. We find that there are no mineral deposits in that region at that altitude that would suggest there was ever a flood. But we do find many petrified stumps and tools consistent with the Bronze Age- which was roughly 4800 years ago. We know people lived there and from archeological evidence from the surrounding area, society was not destroyed by a cataclysmic event like a flood. It's convenient to just take confirmation bias and say it proves this thing you believe but if you actually question it, you see it's way more likely to be a big hut built by the emerging people of that area. And if you take a moment to question your own bible story, you'll find that there isn't enough water on the entire surface of the Earth to lift a boat to that altitude. But I guess you never question your beliefs either.
I would like to know where you got that 88% sexual desire statistic. It sounds like a number you pulled out of your ass. Because I could cite to you the published, academically accredited material that I'm referencing. I'm curious to see where your information is coming from.
And if 80% of the porn you view has women as sex objects, that probably means you're looking at mostly female porn. There's a lot of guy porn out there too. It's practically a whole genre of just interchangeable guys and girls ( or guys and guys or girls and girls ) meeting up and immediately having sex. I always found that boring. I like to feel like they have a little more character or personality than that. A spirited photographer can really bring LIFE to the subject, create a sense of action and purpose instead of just settings up the same old lights and taking pussy pictures. I'd really like to see more fresh talent in the industry. It's grown stale with crusty old guys churning out the same old lazy crap. And yeah, a lot of them are old-fashioned, misogynistic ass holes who treat their actors like tissue paper and it's really sad. If people respected the industry more and treated the talent like real human being instead of dismissing them as deviants, it could actually be a fair place to work. Funny thing, for all that people focus on the women, the male actors are some of the most mistreated workers in that business. Lowest paid, quickly dismissed and shortest careers. Perhaps they wouldn't be pictured so much as objects if we as a society didn't treat them as less than human for their career choice.
That wasn't an estimation, that was what the average was lately. Hate to break it to you, but when there was no quote "Significant change" that defeats your own statement then about Porn reducing it then. If there's little change when porn was introduced, then Porn did nothing to help it at all.
Reread it again.
Blaming porn does not blame the victims at all. The only way you can put a blame on them is if they post it enough, due to the fact that cyber-crimes happen often and if you haven't noticed, 90% of current sexual predators(The model currently inaccurate due to the assumption of the number because most sexual predators are yet to be caught, found, and labeled)determine victims near them based on what they find on them.
You'd be surprised what you can learn when you stand at all stand-point-views. You side with yours. I side with mine, and research. I side with every view I can think of and find on it. Just saying.
Also, scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves the flood account. Why? Because we wouldn't know if a global flood happened. Why? Because if it did or did not, it would still have that uniform layer of sediment that we wouldn't determine nor deem as such. Because with something that long ago, we can't determine what caused it precisely. Just take a good guess is all.
Confirmation of that being in Colorado(Where I live), we had a "One in a thousand year flood" within the last 2 year's. Guess what? It left a 12 feet deep sedimentary layer, carved out boulders larger than me, and did enough damage to the point where it would of made evolutionists think it took at least 12,000 year's to form such a strong and huge sedimentary layer.
Another contradiction to Evolution theories include:
If we were here for millions of year's, our digits on population would be over 20 trillion, not 8billion since we increase by double the size every 20-30 year's in population, which slowed in the past 50 year's due to over-population. In fact, it was even more rapid long ago, suggesting our existence to be no longer than 15,000 year's, no less than 9,000 year's.
2: Carbon dating goes against most evolutionistic theories, this includes the bias and flawed nature of Carbon dating, as it CAN NOT account for most natural events. Leaving a 10million margin of error in the dating of the Earth's age.
Please also note: There were starfish found on the Mountain caps near the Flood site, and all over the planet. Most dated within 10 year's of each other if I recall correctly. Just consider starfish like to be at the bottom of the ocean floor, not the top.
And the actual estimated date of Noah's Ark isn't 4,800 year's. It's about 10,000 year's. Pretty bad if you can't fake nor make petrified wood like that, nor copy/replicate the results of the Platinum workings found there. All things considered: We don't have anything that can lift something weighing roughly 100tons to 150tons estimate up a mountain side like that. Maybe flat ground(The things they use to move NASA Spaceships and Rockets) but otherwise no.
One final consideration:
You misunderstand the phrase "higher than the mountains." It may of meant it literally, but anyone who's smart would understand the mountains do gain height at a decent rate. If you pay attention to geographical conditions, there wasn't a single mountain taller than 1,000 feet high at 8,000 B.C. Just 5 feet of rushing water is enough to carve 25 feet of stone every year. Now imagine 1,250 Feet of it. Please note, the Bible and even the most ancient texts we can reference tell us that the climate of the Earth was fairly uniform but slowly destablizing.
That in consideration, if that statement is true, then the polar caps were much larger than originally thought. Thus why we see such screwed up sedimentary layers in Greenland and such. Which would explain why there's never a universal sedimentary layer existing within 800 miles of the Polar Caps. You don't consider very much into account, do you?
You're using the same arguments against me I heard at least 50 times dude. I not only took everything into account, I did a few steps past that. One being the fact that, aside from seimentary layers, there is also one fact that rocks can be almost "Terraformed" within and into the ground with the Sedimentary layers. This suggests water is even more powerful than we see today. And it has happened all over the place.
The power ratio of Water is supposedly following the law of force. But multiplied by three times due to it's atomic density in relation-to-weight-ratio. But if water is already much more capable than we see, wouldn't that suggest it uses the force of what it's carrying within the water as well making this upwards of 4.8x to 7.7x the normal output of Force?
Take all that into consideration: Geography, Natural Occurrences and so forth are things I have been studying for a very long time. Theories like the String Theory, Evolution, and many others I could name(But not enough space left to mention) have a hundred times more to go against than with it.
Talk to me again when you restudy.
I didn't claim that porn reduced rates. Please actually read my response next time. I said that porn did not effect rates which invalidates your claim that it makes people more likely to perpetrate sexual crimes. You're simply wrong about porn. And that's how I can rest easy and enjoy making it. It's mostly harmless. There are some sex addicts, yes, but there are also some chocolate addicts as well but I don't think you could really go after Nestle about that. You're grasping at straws now, citing evidence that doesn't because that's what you think should be right. Are you really suggesting that 90% of sexual predators are lurking just beneath the surface, biding their time until they can prove you right?
And an evolutionist might think that. They're essentially biologists. If you want someone who knows rock sediments, you would talk to a geologist. You know, the people who look at that flooded sediment bed on Colorado and think ROAD TRIP! How else do you think they know what flood sediment looks like? The situation you claim to be proof against them is exactly the sort of thing they use as proof of their finding. But you contradict yourself. First you say there would be no evidence as it would all be uniform. Then you say a major flood would make it seem older. Well, which is it? Do you believe that a massive, 40-day flood would leave no revealing evidence? Or do you think that it would be so destructive that it would appear older than it is? Because they know what flood layers look like. Geologists are very good at what they do. It's kind of their life. They also know what glaciers do, including the ones near the polar ice caps. But Turkey is at 40 degrees north latitude and if ice deposits had wiped away the sediment like the have in Greenland then the sediments would look clearly wiped away like in Greenland- but they don't. You're just making insubstantial claims to force a story to fit your view.
These Geologists are the same people who know it takes MILLIONS of years to form mountains, not thousands. You should know this, living by the Rocky Mountains which themselves took 100 million years to form from a super-heated magma pocket under the North American Continent. The mountains in Turkey are even older as they were formed by the collision of the Eurasian tectonic plate and the African plate 300 million years ago. I mean, really, this is basic stuff. Like, Jr High stuff. A monstrous spectacle like the Grand Canyon still took 6 million years to carve out and it's not even as deep as the turkish mountains are tall. And that was water carving down. Mountains have to go up to lift things above altitudes that they couldn't possibly exist at.
The evolutionists would also have something to say about population growth. That whole thing about doubling every 20-30 years, that's not true at all and goes against even basic common sense. Wild animals don't work like that. It's not like elephant populations are doubling or wolves are growing in population or every couple decades there are twice as many ranbits. Who even said that was a natural law? Humans may CURRENTLY be populating at that rate but it's not like we've always been that way. Documented human populations were believed to be mostly stagnant prior to the iron age- including the Mesopotamians who lived uninterrupted by any mass flooding in the region for thousands of years.
And Crinoid fossils found on mountains is no new phenomenon. There are fossils on thr top of Everest as well which some people claim to be proof of a flood. This, of course, is idiotic as the sheer volume of water required to cover that much of the Earth 10,000, years ago just doesn't exist on this planet. But scientists are well aware of this ocurance. You see, your problem is in the dating. Crinoids, like starfish and anemones, have existed for nearly 600 million years, well before many of the mountains we know were formed. You see, you kinda HAVE to be that old to get lifted that high. Those fossils date in the hundreds of millions of years old.
You seem to be missing a lot of basic science and substituting it for contradictory conjectures and pseudoscience to try and validate your beliefs. You're really stretching to try and make this particular site be right when it just doesn't make sence. Water couldn't lift it that high, nor could geological events in such a short time frame. There's no geological evidence to support super water powers accellerating the process, nor science to support the super water power theory, let alone it happening covertly in a natural setting. The fact of the matter is they found a wood structure on a hill with metal rivots and rocks that's dated around 5,000 years ago. It doesn't even match up with the bible story that puts it at 10,000 years. You don't have to shoe-horn this thing in to match a bible story. It's just probably not the boat you're looking for. That doesn't mean it never existed, it just means that this particular structure probably isn't that thing. Keep looking! You may still find stuff!
Talk to me again when you grasp basic concepts.
And actually, I have questioned my belief. Plenty of times. I questioned other beliefs. I find there is very VERY few religions with any REMOTE truth behind them(Being barely 10) in the world major-branches only. All branches of religion(Including Minorities, and extinct religions) would put it at about 108 instead. 40,000 subsections, and denominations of Christianity alone. Another 30,000 or so in Catholicism. Only 100 in Satanism I believe(Though I don't care much for Satanism so I can be very wrong on that one) and all things to consider the current digit, there's at least a total of 400,000 different religions out there. Even though 89% of them are almost the exact same as what they branched from, but are mostly cults.
Saying the claim of "Rape went down prior to porn" means you're saying porn is causing it to go down, when it hasn't so. Watch your wording.
You went from saying that to saying it had no effect, isn't that a bit hypocritical?
No, I said 90% of them aren't even registered/caught yet. Nothing else on that issue.
Actually, the 40 day flood took longer due to the time it took to pour down it was more precisely around 3 months to do that. And that wasn't contradictory. I said flooding can make the sedimentary seem like it happened longer ago than it actually did, which it CAN do the opposite as well. How does that contradict what I said at all? That's just an off-topic statement.
And no, actually, some studies did go there are some unusual sedimentary layers in most area's near both arctic poles. Not saying it's a guarantee on what caused it, but that's the only possibility I see with it.
Hate to break it to you, but those hundreds of millions of year's can raise another 250 feet in a few days if the fault lines go berserk and "Break" in a way under each other a few times quickly. Hasn't anyone told you what volcanoes do and how powerful they are? ONE Volcano at the Hawaiian Islands itself contradicts the "Logic" we have now, because it's already formed miles of more land within months, and rose the sea floor an awful lot(No exact digit just a guess from 120 feet to 300 feet) within a few months as well. The Rocky Mountains USED to be an active Volcano longggg ago. It's not anymore. Why do you think it's never changed in the past 500 year's? Nothing was making it change.
It takes Tsunami's, massive Earthquakes, Volcanoes and/or Titanic Plates movements to cause Mountain Ranges. Otherwise, it CANNOT and WILL NOT happen otherwise. Keep that in mind.
Hate to break but even any Scientist will tell you "The larger the digit we put on something, the larger the margin of error it has." The larger a digit in ANYTHING the larger the margin for error is period. It's a universal rule. The dates we have on Earth's Age can fluctuate from the 8billion year's with a possible high of up to 20billion, minimal of possibly 50,000. That's how massive a fluctuation we are looking at. We're Human. We have flawed logic, flawed machines etc. We can't be perfect nor make ANYTHING perfect what-so-ever. Even if we get a machine to carve something within a quintilleth of an Inch, still not perfection. Keep that in mind, all we do is guess guess guess. We already got it wrong on who found America, who was there first. We got it wrong on Quantum Physics originally as well. We just guess. The term Theory is an "Educated Guess", a Hypothesis is the conclusion of our theories. Doesn't make it right.
If a mass investigation was led on say furries, and assume they find 90% or so have some form of issue, would it be a good Hypothesis to conclude that based on how often and universally it seems to happen to them, that it's correct to assume it's being a Furry that causes it? Heck no. It's a freaking guess. Get that through your head, no one knows everything. Any source of info can be just as false as most others because it's EASY to mistake History of how it happened, and so forth.
Didn't anyone also tell you that even me talking to an Anthropologist expect recently at PPCC that he and I both agreed quote: "People can't exactly determine the exact date on ANYTHING. Especially Human nor Animal remains because there's climate conditions to consider, the sedimentary, formations etc. that influence the structure of the Bones and even so much as modify and change them." The fact that he went and looked past the arrogant Scientific type of view, he said it the way he found it to be. Matter of fact he freaking RUNS an Anthropology community in Colorado.
So you tell me if he's wrong or not. He would know it a lot better than I do since he is an expert into it. And even though he's great at it, he STILL is studying and getting more involved into it than he already is. That's commitment right there(Even telling me that Anthology is a branch off of Anthropology and so is Paleontology or a different one not quite sure).
And actually, I have proof on the 20-30 year's doubling a year. In 1990 we were barely at a 6billion population. At 1950 it wasn't even 3billion. The Roman Empire itself at 51 B.C. only had a few million:
" By these estimates the entire population of the Roman Empire — and not just its male population — was somewhere around 4 million to 5 million people by the end of the first century B.C." http://www.livescience.com/9732-ancient-rome-real-population-revealed.html
I had other sources to back it up. So if most of the worlds population was in Rome at the time, with the absolute max in the world total at a possible what? 10million? 12million is all? What does that tell you? In a few thousand year's we have grown over 800x the size. Averaging at a growth of at least doubling anywhere from 15 year's to 30 year's if you want a precise prediction and measurement.
Anyone smart knows for every theorum in Science, 1-5 more contradict it.
You didn't pay attention on the wording either to my links. It didn't say it was dating to be 5,000 year's old, it was just the age it was WHEN it was on the Mountain top. Do not forget, it was there for a very much longer time before it ever hit that mountain, not just flooding times, but the time it took to build, and the time it took before the flood even came.
Dark-226
Define unscouted please, I'm not very familiar with the Art Portal.
TerdBurgler
For your work to be seen in the Art Portal you need to be scouted. Basically, a sponsor who will vouch for you. If you are found to be in violation of the Art Portal rules, you'll be un-scouted. Additionally, if your sponsor is un-scouted, you'll be un-scouted as well. As it currently stands, I have no idea if I was in personal violation or if my sponsor was in violation (or their sponsor or the sponsor above them). The end result is that slews of people could find themselves suddenly un-scouted over one violator higher up in the chain.