Over a year ago, I made a short series of posts addressing Creationists and endogenous retroviruses (Old ERV, New ERV).
Casey Luskin is evidently unaware of this series, as he managed to smack his loverly, loverly face into a couple of them in his recent blog post 'news release' at Evolution News & Views (Why is EN&V indexed by Google News, again?).
Casey TARD: ID proponents would predict function for ERVs... As William Dembski wrote in 1998, "If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function."
Casey is referring to a recently published paper, Retroviral promoters in the human genome, where they sifted through the human genome for potentially active ERV 'LTRs', and they found some. YAY! COOL!
But Casey thinks that means ERVs are 'functional'.
I dont think Casey knows what ERVs are.
If Ive said it once, Ive said it 1,000 times-- You do not want ERVs to be functional. Functional ERVs would be 'endogenous proviruses', thus they could kill you. Even though the most 'popular' retrovirus, HIV-1, doesnt cause cancer, cancer is retroviruses favorite trick! B-cell leukemias, T-cell lymphomas, erythroleukemia, myeloid leukemias, osteosarcomas, fibrosarcomas, carcinomas...
No one, including cdesign proponentsists, want ERVs to be functional!
What we do know, and have known since at least 1990 (thats pre-cdesign proponentsists, Casey) is that components of ERVs can be co-opted, through evolution, to perform other tasks. 'LTRs' are the promoters for retroviruses (I havent gotten to them in the 'Intro to ERVs' series yet). Its possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the genes like 'Whoa! Ur a better promoter! I keepsies you!! *hug*' Its also possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the gene says 'Piss off.' Its also possible that a retrovirus plops down next to an oncogene, and the cell cant turn off the viral promoter... YAY CANCER!
While we have been finding functional ERV promoters here and there (because they cause a disease, we notice them), no one has ever done a genome wide screen for LTRs that have been domesticated for 'normal' use by our cells. So Conley & Crew used a couple of cool new genetics tricks to determine just how many ERV LTRs have the potential to act as promoters. They found ~100 genes that were probably ERV-promoter-driven, and lots that might have ERV promoters as 'alternate' promoters.
They also did a fun experiment with broad-reaching implications-- Test for ERV-driven transcription differences in human vs mouse tissue. They used 'GSTO1', a gene with ERV promoters upstream, and has also been associated with 'cerebrovascular diseases including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia and stroke.' Mice dont have an ERV north of GSTO1. Mice and humans both have GSTO2, and neither of us has an ERV north of that gene.
Mice and humans have similar transcription levels of GSTO2.
Mice and humans have different transcription levels of GSTO1, in part because our GSTO1 transcription uses an ERV promoter instead of the 'normal' one! This little exercise just demonstrated one of the reasons humans are different from mice (well, not just humans, all primates have this ERV insertion).
And think about what it leads towards-- Not only elucidating the teeny-tiny-differences that lead to speciation events, but what makes a breast cancer different from regular breast tissue? What makes a brain with Alzheimers different from a normal brain? We know there are transcript differences, but are the diseases caused by an alternate transcript initiated by an ERV promoter? Is it a loss of control of that ERV promoter that leads to disease? Can we give people therapies (ie epigenetic modifiers) to control wayward ERVs induced transcription?
Sweet.
This paper also does a great job of emphasizing the huge role retroviruses have played in the evolution of life on this planet:
The lineage-specific regulatory effects of ERV promoters can be attributed to the fact that ERV sequences result from past germline infections, many of which occurred relatively recently along specific evolutionary lineages. In fact, most of the ERV sequences in the human genome are primate-specific (Sverdlov, 2000), while most human genes are far more ancient and share orthologs with distantly related species (Lander et al., 2001). This means that regulatory effects exerted by ERV promoters will often lead to expression differences between primate and non-primate orthologs or between deeper evolutionary lineages for more ancient ERVs. In other words, ERV promoters are likely to drive evolutionary changes in gene expression, long thought to be an important determinant of species divergence (King et al., 1975).
Of course, to Caseys lovery, loverly ears, the authors are just 'pandering to the evilutionary para-dig-um'. lol.
- Log in to post comments
When I saw Casey's latest drivel on the DI website, I wondered how long it would take for you to respond with some real science.
Poor Casey suffers dreadfully from delusions of adequacy.
For the life of me, I can't figure out if he's just a cynical liar for Jeebus, or merely stupid. Maybe he's both.
You immediately springs to mind the first moment I see that hack job on evilution news! seriously!
Thanks for another great take down ERV, is there a chance you could do a Panda's Thumb version of it?
Im still doing another pulse-->chase today, but I wanted to get something out on this topic-- I will probably do a for realsies PT post tomorrow night :)
Boo ya!!
HaHa! Casey Effin' Luskin!@ Denied again.
BTW For those of you scoring at home, this makes it ERV 3, DI Hacks 0 in head to head competition.
Dembski and Behe are still smarting from their ERV smackdowns.
We fully expect you to NOT post this, but we'll give it a whirl anyway.
Please refer to:
No more TARD spammy spam, Harblz. --ERV
Scroll to:
"How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?"
and
"By Chance, What Made ERVS Evolve into "The Cure," Instead of Remaining Disease Related Viruses?"
and
"By Chance, What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?"
and
"ERVS Created the Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner. What Came First � the Host or the Regulatory Network?"
anf
"By Chance, What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?"
and
"By Chance, What Made LTRS Gain Transciptional Abilities for Essential Genes?"
and
"Misc. Examples of biased and inaccurate research and publications:"
Please note that there are about 50 + research articles referenced so we look forward to your rebuttal.
(If you can restrain yourself, it would serve all of us well if you would debate without insults and foul language.)
Since it isn't your blog, I don't think anyone gives a fuck about foul language...also, why is it that IDiots always think people with brains are out to censor them?
who is your creator: Two word response: Fuck You.
who is your creator: longer response:
Who gives a shit about your "arguments", which are your cutting and splicing selectively quote-mined text which you retards don't have a clue about. Go stick your empty heads in your Wholly Babble.
#6 I don't need foul language for a rebuttal. There still isn't a single piece of data in support of old-school or new-school creationism in peer-reviewed scientific research papers, and no amount of quote-mining can alter that fact.
I can has edukashun?
pwned!
Yay ERV!
PalMD: Classic projection. Try posting criticism of id on uncommon descent and see how long your account lasts.
Yeah, when i get opposition trolls at my place, i only censor them when they get too nasty. If they actually want to have an honest debate, they can have their own goddamned thread and go to town. At UD, creationwiki, etc, no descent = no dissent.
@6;
Anyone with beyond a first year biology education could answer that... I'll get to it in a moment, it's really not very complicated...
It's getting to the point that I'm thinking we could even make a science out of creationist behavior. (Actually, it's probably been at that point for a few decades now ...)
Though it's fascinating how organisms could have taken advantage of parts of an ERV such that they would be used in lieu of the original promoters. Was it helped out by a mutation that occurred just at the right time, or did the ERV itself somehow got parts of it used?
Why would they make this prediction? There is nothing in ID which would imply any such prediction. ID has nothing to say about methods and motives, remember Casey? The same Bill Dembski tells us those aren't scientific questions. ID also 'predicts' no function at all just as well.
ID is useless on so many levels.
Thank you all for your very articulate and scientific responses, and we'll now assume that none of you have any evidence that might prove ERVs initially evolved as virulent viruses.
We'll look forward some day for more worthy and informed opponents that use empirical evidence for their arguments, instead of insults, crass language, and juvenile conjecture.
It's truly fascinating that this blog is called 'scientific'...
@ who is your creator #6:
Why would you think that? It's pretty obvious ERV isn't afraid of much and certainly not the likes of you.
Deciding to give you a chance, I followed your instructions. The statement above is NOT supported by the associated reference:
You use a reference and example that is specifically related to cancer tumors and virus and try to generalize it to pertain to all ERVs. James F in comment #9 above states the situation succinctly.
Maybe the answer to your question above is: Only the disease causing exogenous retroviruses that didn't kill the human before said human could breed became ERVs after the human's defense mechanisms disabled (or not) the disease-causing exogenous retrovirus. That's what ERV means by: "Its possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the genes like 'Whoa! Ur a better promoter! I keepsies you!! *hug*'" (and "Its also possible that a retrovirus plops down next to an oncogene, and the cell cant turn off the viral promoter... YAY CANCER!").
Having a limited amount of time in my life to suffer fools, I didn't further check out your website.
I'm a layperson who loves science (my educational background is Physics) so the only thing I know about ERVs is what I've read (so far) in the textbook "LIFE - The Science of Biology" and various layfolk-friendly books/videos/science blogs which, of course, includes ERVs website.
I find your post and your website to be unhelpful in furthering my understanding of ERVs. I did appreciate seeing yet one more example of the disingenuous tactics you cdesign proponentsists will use in your attempt to pervert Science for the sake of an invisible Sky-Daddy.
Next time you get sick, do the world a favor and pray instead of seeing a doctor. In other words, see comments #7 and #8 above.
ERV Abbie, thank you so much for your informative blog, your creative humor, your skill to communicate with layfolk as well as professionals, and your extraordinary courage!
@ who is your creator # 17:
Assumption and Faith seem to describe your modus operandi, so why consider Science and Reason as alternatives?
Feel free to "rock-on" dudes (I'm assuming the "we" is NOT the royal "we"), as your current tactics have been just so successful with your Wedge objective, not to mention side effects, like discovering cures that actually might work.
The royal "we", eh?
W.I.Y.C. is barking up the wrong tree, anyway. Everybody knows that viruses are the result of Zeus pissing in the gene pool. Prove me wrong!
Blake-- We need to create a Creationist literacy campaign or something, because evidently 'we' cant read either.
who is your creator: you worry about what you call "crass language", but I've got another concept for your weak mind.
You are the merchants of "crass language", because you are also the asswipes who poison the minds of young children with the bullshit of a 6,000 year old earth and the other obscene images of your Wholly Babble. You, "who is your creator", are the scum who would teach children to toss reason and knowledge to the wind in favor of your bronze age creation myths of a desert warrior tribe who knew nothing about how the world really works.
"who is your creator": all you have to do to find obscenity, stupidity, and ignorance is to look into a mirror.
Julie Haberle, AKA "Who is Your Creator" --
I'd like to invite you to take your claims up at Panda's Thumb
After the Bar Closes where I can guarantee you your own personal thread, minimal profanity and a bevy of sciency types who are willing to instruct you in the errors of your ways. Or, you can opt to go one-on-one with a single poster.
Beyond your clumsy attempts at co-opting, mangling, and cherry-picking ERV papers -- I noticed that the one thing actually lacking in that post on your website is any actual data supporting your belief that viruses were "created good" (and presumably became "bad" due to "The Fall" -- per the laughable blather of AiG's Jerry Bergman) but are now "serving the purposes of the Creator."
You say on your site that you can't wait to hear the evolutionary side of your cartoon version of science and history, so I'll urge you to hie yourself on over to AtBC.
By the way, Julie Haberle....I *would* have replied in full to your claims at your site, but you seem to have failed to allow that on your website. Coincidence? I think not.
I hope that you'd have the courage of your convictions to debate your claims openly, in a more appropriate setting, rather than these hit-and-run forays onto blogs.
Quote mining and out of context references are not equal to support of your position.
Tsk tsk tsk, silly Billy. Don't you know that the genome has degraded and filled with gunk since the Fall? Really. Why do we have to keep their story straight for them?
who is your creator @ #6
Evidence:
ERVs have copies (though not necessarily functional ones) of GAG, POL, and ENV genes, pretty much by definition as I understand it. These three genes are shared by almost all if not all viruses. Since there is a clear-cut mechanism for retroviruses to transcribe their genes into whatever DNA is present in an infected cell and since the human genome has no real use for a bunch of non-functional copies of genes used to code for viral proteins, the simplest and most likely explanation is that ERVs are genetic imprints of retroviruses that transcribed their genes into our ancestral DNA and then mutated until they stopped producing viruses.
You're not looking for a simple explanation for why broken virus genes are all over the human genome. You've already decided that God put them there and you're trying to justify that belief by latching on to anything that looks like it might fool somebody into thinking that's the case. That's pretty much the opposite of scientific, so why don't you quit the posturing, open your mind, and try to actually learn a thing or two about science before running off your mouth.
Its possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the genes like 'Whoa! Ur a better promoter! I keepsies you!! *hug*'
So. Full. Of. WIN.
Hi J-Dog,
I propose Abbie as the scientifically literate Jew who could explain to DI mendacious intellectual pornographer Michael Medved why ID doesn't pose a "challenge" to evolution (You may recall a certain posting of his in which he acknowledged that ID isn't a valid scientific theory, but is still rather useful as a "challenge" to evolution.).
Cheers,
John
Hi J-Dog,
Hope you're right about the ERV smackdowns of Dembski and Behe. Dembski seems to act as though he hasn't heard of Abbie, while every now and then, I think I sense some lingering hostility from dear ol' Mikey towards Abbie over at his Amazon.com blog. Wonder why.....
Cheers,
John
Sooner or later these idiots are going to learn to read. Or at least I hope they are as they're really getting boring now.
I just dropped by for the boobies, but the only one on display was "who is your creator."
WIYC:
The problem with your view of "crass language" is that it forgets one principle point of etiquette that no one seems to give much thought to: if you're doing it for any reason other than keeping your elbows out of someone else's plate, you're missing the point. And as a layperson, I bet I can answer a couple of these myself:
"How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?"
Because they've been inactivated by regulation mechanisms we're still learning about. Inactive ERVs are like commented-out code in computer programming -- they're there, but the compiler/ribosome ignores them.
"By Chance, What Made ERVS Evolve into "The Cure," Instead of Remaining Disease Related Viruses?"
They aren't the cure for anything. Not sure where you get your ideas from -- those that aren't somehow incorporated into the host genome do nothing.
"By Chance, What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?"
Abbie has discussed this quite a few times. Go look through the archives.
"ERVS Created the Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner. What Came First � the Host or the Regulatory Network?"
First off, your premise is a little out of whack -- show me that the difference between, for example, a protist and a sponge or a Chlamydomonas and a Volvox are virally derived. There's no particular reason to assume that multicellular life forms required viral DNA to function as they do; it's certainly possible, but not the only likely route.
That said, considering that poorly- or undifferentiated multicellular species like Volvox and sponges do exist, it's entirely possible the host came first.
"By Chance, What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?"
Those that did landed in just the right place at just the right time to be ignored by the transcription mechanisms and set the organism off on a completely different course.
"By Chance, What Made LTRS Gain Transciptional Abilities for Essential Genes?
Uh... I can't even parse this, although to me it reads like a tautology with the answer "uh... because they were there?" Abbie?
Great job, BrianX! For the last one-- This paper makes it clear that the ERV LTRs are 'alternate' promoters. Where retroviruses insert is random, so if one happens to plop down near an 'essential gene' (I thought all genes were 'essential' to Creationists?), the gene can be transcribed with its old promoter OR the ERV LTR promoter. If the ERV LTR one turns out to be 'better', then it will become the 'dominant' promoter.
But we dunt know all that yet :) This group found ~100 genes that defiantly use an ERV promoter at some point, and thousands more that could be used for an alternate transcript.
(Why is EN&V indexed by Google News, again?)
For much the same reason that your blog is in all probability. Yes, Google News indexes scienceblogs.com.
Actually I wished they had an option to exclude all blogs from Google News searches. Blogs don't work very well with news search. Search for human evolution and Google News returns a bunch of Greg Laden posts that are not about human evolution because Google News for some reason thinks that because the full title of his blog includes "human evolution" that every entry of his blog is a new item on human evolution. I am sure that Greg would agree that is not good indexing.
The response on #18 responding to our challenge of �How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?" posted on #6:
�Maybe the answer to your question above is: Only the disease causing exogenous retroviruses that didn't kill the human before said human could breed became ERVs after the human's defense mechanisms disabled (or not) the disease-causing exogenous retrovirus.�
�Maybe� might be compelling evidence for your followers, but we prefer empirical evidence gained by observation and genetic research.
It�s interesting that most of you won�t accept evolutionary research when it contradicts your religion of evolution. Why don�t you counter it with �quote-mining� of conflicting research (See #9)?
Could it be that it doesn't exist?
WIYC, you have received several answers to your questions and have not responded to any except to play with the satirical use of 'maybe'.
You seem incapable of real debate and as noted by several and experienced by many more, id/creationists cannot debate on their own websites, only blind obedience is acceptable.
In regard to #37 above, please reference any research articles that refute our claims as that is the process of beginning an actual debate.
The only thing we see on this blog is a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions and personal hypothesis (as noted on #33).
Well, if your approach to "refuting" the big bang is in any way similar to your approach to this ERV business, I can understand the reluctance the biologists here have in talking to you. I'll give you an example. On your website you have a quote in a sidebar which says:
Did you, or did you not read that article in its entirety? If you did, then by isolating the quote and presenting it as scientific dissent regarding the big bang you are being dishonest. If you did not, then it's my sad duty to inform you that you have made the serious mistake of citing someone who does not dispute that it did happen and, indeed, is a supporter of eternal inflation and not of a creation. What's more, he says mean things about Christianity.
You are either dishonest, in which case there is nothing which can be gained by taking the time to present facts which you will distort, or you do not pay attention, in which case there is nothing to be gained by taking the time to present facts which you will ignore. Now run along and take your pick axe... I hear they need some more people in the quote mines.
In response to #39 above:
1. Since you're changing the subject, we'll assume that you are throwing in the towel and can offer NO empirical evidence to support the claims that ERVs originally evolved as virulent and deadly viruses.
2. If you wish to discuss the big bang, please start a thread on:
whoisyourcreatorisaspammingwhore.com
3. When you revert to your 'code' words of, "dishonest", "distort", "quote-mining", "straw man", and one of the most common phrases, "You just ignore the facts anyway", we'll take it that you can't offer any empirical research/evidence countering our claims.
If you do come up with anything, debates work better if you cite specific sentences/paragraphs so we know exactly you are referring to so we can counter.
This is what is called 'debating' ...
WIYC-- Your question is answered in the OP. Twice. Are you trolling, or are you mentally handicapped?
See, this is what I'm talking about. Clearly, you've had it said to you before that you're dishonest and that you've already drawn conclusions which no evidence can overturn -- yet, you don't change what you're doing. That's not "debating". That's "masturbating". You made this a game for one at the outset, and now you're complaining that nobody wants to play with you.
I'll tell you what, WIYC, you have a chance to prove me wrong when I say you can't be convinced of anything. Since the very article which the Andre Linde quote on your website came from was actually a discussion about various models of inflation, and that the quote was meant as a motivational question to start the presentation of his model, you have a big opportunity to tell us that you were wrong, and that the presence of the quote on your website misrepresents his position. Once you have removed this quote, we'll know that there is a chance of convincing you that you're wrong. Then you'll have to address the repeated use of the fallacy of many questions you injected into your first post. Because you have phrased the questions in such a way as to suggest, disingenuously, that they cannot be answered, people are right to assume that you will not listen to any answers they give.
So, correct these issues, ask your questions honestly, and you'll find that the people here will be perfectly happy to answer them.
WIYC, do the references that you claim support your viewpoint really support your viewpoint?
We've been here so many times before. It is depressing that people still aren't getting it. Keep up the good work, Abbie! Oh, and don't forget ERVs and MS - this paper was, for me, the most compelling evidence to date that re-expressed ERVs are involved in human disease.
who is your creator @#36
'Maybe might be compelling evidence for your followers, but we prefer empirical evidence gained by observation and genetic research.'
Actually no you don't. What you do prefer is that some archetypal heroic defender putatively written about by an irrefutable, unerring, all powerful authority figure will save you at the last moment. The only basis you have for your beliefs is the word of an unevidenced, untestable and completely unverified human creation. That is far from evidence and it certainly is not subject to direct observation.
Your standards you hold are different for your beliefs and that of others. The standards you hold for your own beliefs are low enough that using those same standards, the Iliad can be accepted as proof of Greek gods. In contrast to that your standards for science are high enough that no evidence can be accepted.
The irony of this is that you know that, which is why you attempt to lower science to the level of religion in the hopes that in doing so the playing field will be leveled for religion. Unfortunately, for you at least, religion based on your authority of choice has so much less evidence (basically none) than science, your attempts are futile.
I can understand this frustrates you to no end. The fact that the evidential imbalance is so much in favour of science which so uncompassionately pushes your god into smaller and smaller boxes making it more and more impotent pushes you to search out (and manufacture) knowledge gaps that you feel you can cram your god into.
If you really want to show science is wrong, and you value evidence based research, then instead of using quote mines and the inevitable existing gaps in scientific knowledge (science doesn't have all the facts and knows it) take all the knowledge we do have, do some research and then show us how your research supports your hypotheses and provides a better explanation.
And be willing to modify your hypothesis to match the data.
What we don't know does not automatically make what we do know, or think we do, false. That is basic logic. It is unfortunate you do not understand that.
Heh, I just took a look at Julie Haberle's (Who is Your Creator) "forum"
A person tells her that science does not claim absolute immutable truths.
Julie responds by saying:
You're not playing with a full deck, are you, Julie Haberle "Who is Your Creator" ?
In regard to #46:
1. It's curious that you wish to make this a personal issue by using my full name. Unless everyone agrees to refer to the name of each participant (including yours), I suggest you keep this dialogue as non-personal as possible.
2. Since you don't believe that 'facts' exist, I suggest you urge your fellow evolutions to delete their following claims, and subsequent ones that will be presented:
Original post:
What we do know, and have known since at least 1990 (thats pre-cdesign proponentsists, Casey) is that components of ERVs can be co-opted ...
Mice and humans have similar transcription levels of GSTO2.
Mice and humans have different transcription levels of GSTO1, in part because our GSTO1 transcription uses an ERV promoter instead of the 'normal' one!
#27
ERVs have copies (though not necessarily functional ones) of GAG, POL, and ENV genes
#34
This paper makes it clear that the ERV LTRs are 'alternate' promoters
This group found ~100 genes that defiantly use an ERV promoter at some point.
WIYC vowels seem to be stuck. There is an easy way to fix this, WIYC.
Julie Haberle, AKA "who is your creator" you seem to have some real cognitive issues.
You see, I was quoting a person on your own site, Julie. That does NOT mean that I don't accept that facts exist.
Oh, and Julie Haberle? Since when did "evolutions" become a noun referring to person or persons? Are you afflicted by some form of aphasia?
And as far as your suggestions, Julie Haberle, I'll suggest you write them on a nice thick sheet of paper, fold it into sharp corners, then bend over and stick it in your oubliette. You're 58 years old and ignorant of any relevant topic that you blithely disparage, Julie Haberle. Grow up.
I've read your threads at your site and your approach is simply littered with fallacies and sheer ignorance. You redefine terms such as "evolution" so that they are antithetical to what they MIGHT mean in actual science, then you play games with equivocation, quote-mining and actually editing posts that show you to be wrong. I've dealt with your delusional kind before, Julie, and whatever you imagine yourself, don't mistake it for competent.
In your little mind, you might fancy yourself of some consequence, but in the real world of science, you're insignificant. Now, I specifically invited you to post your tripe at http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48b6b224… or you can choose any other site where you DON'T have the ability to dissapear my posts, and I'll be glad to slap you around as you so richly deserve, Julie Haberle. Alternatively, ERV can do so, since you're fouling her site with your incontinence.
If you can't manage the ethics and basic morals to do so, well, then that's your choice, but it'll certainly be indicative, won't it?
Awesome! You have purposely corrupted our postings from the last couple of days.
Thank you for acknowledging that we are a threat to your 'intellectual honesty' and we look forward to using this 'scientific' blog as an example of how some evolutionists 'debate.'
Im sorry, while its very difficult to read your last post, WIYC, it doesnt appear to contain any tits. Were you asking for advice on how to operate your webcam? Maybe what file storage program to use? Photobucket is good, but they take nudes down pretty fast.
Didn't your mommy tell you never to talk with your mouth full, Julie? Now, get back to munching.
ERV: you really don't wanna see the dugs on this critter, there's a pic of her floating around google images.
Damn, you made me look. This must be her (the caption even included "Who's your creator"). Now after seeing that combined with Abbie's request there goes lunch.
Great, thanks a lot JJ; the link didn't work until I fiddled with it, but just great. Hmm, the thing is that now it's as if I'm at the scene of an accident; I don't want to, but FSM damn it I just HAVE to see her tits.
Poor Julie... she was devoweled by a hungry blogger. And before she even got a chance to respond to my post.
I guess we now know the answer to the question "who watches The Watchers?". Casey Luskin. Crying.
The use of the word 'immediately' in wiyc's first comment shows the basis of their stupidity, I think.
What we see as ERVs are the result of an organism's immune response to viral attack. Different individuals responded in different ways and many got sick and died. Its called 'natural selection'.
Wow, this Luskin guy is an unbelievably petty tool. Using his bully pulpit at DI to misrepresent the character of this personal dispute and try to frame it as a censorship issue. I feel slimy just reading his post. And "devowelling," Casey? It's disemvoweling. Unfortunately, that's the least of this guy's factual errors. And the TITS thing, brilliant. Does he really not understand internet culture, or is he just pretending not to understand it so he can misrepresent your post?