This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by TirelessRebutter

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 249 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 246 by sprite :

Physical strength really matters to most males. It is how they compete against each other for females, not how they compete against females - though they will use it to attract females (protector) or sexually coerce females, and the same male may use both strategies.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it doesn't seem to resemble the world in which we live. Throughout history we see that leadership is determined by cleverness and charisma, not ability to bench press.

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:19:35 UTC | #590948

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 248 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 249 by blitz442 :

Therefore, if we had open competition b/t male and female tennis players, and the highest ranking female consistently ranked just outside the top 1000 of all professionals, then we can safely conclude that she is better at tennis than all but 1,000 people on the planet.

Which doesn't actually tell us anything whatsoever about the male and female skill distributions. The tallest female was taller than almost all men, but that doesn't mean we should say the height distributions are only insignificantly different.

And besides, this analogy with sport isn't very interesting as it has nothing to do with sex differences in psychology.

Comment 245 by Schrodinger's Cat

How on Earth would one decide a definitive distribution ? It could not be simply 'all people'....because if all the women in the world became professional tennis players and all the men didn't, one could inaccurately conclude from a comprehensive distribution that women are vastly better tennis players than men.

But that isn't what actually happens. In the real world, an average male (amateur) athelete is very likely to beat an average female (amateur) athelete.

I don't know why I jumped into this discussion, anyway, as sports bore me to tears.

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:06:35 UTC | #590942

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 242 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 235 by blitz442 :

As an example, it may well be true that the best female tennis player would rank say, number 1,000 among male players. Or 2,000. Or 3,000. Whatever - it still means that she is a better tennis player than 99.999% of humans, male or female, on the planet.

Your argument is silly, because it is completely innocent of the concept of a statistical distribution. Just taking a few examples doesn't tell you much about almost any distribution. The skill distributions are very much different, even if there's great variance in both distributions.

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:28:46 UTC | #590745

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 240 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 228 by xmaseveeve :

I don't know why you keep accusing this poster of being politically correct, or why you want him to visit a bar to find people who make sense (!) but the woman in the debate you cite (excellent debate) demolished Pinker's arguments. (To be fair, I think he generally agrees with her.)

Actually, the debate was about as clear-cut as a debate which places some theologian against Sam Harris. Spelke thinks there aren't significant psychological differences between the sexes, but the large literature outlined by Pinker demonstrates that she is simply wrong. Game over.

'a whole literature bearing out my assertion'

I didn't see any assertions, just misogyny and a vague claim that men can't help being 'wired' (your word) to see women as orifices to shove your penis into.

That has nothing to do with anything being said.

*'Or the fact that any man who doesn't behave in the "proper" way dictated by women is doomed to be celibate and frustrated.'

What, like the Yorkshire Ripper? Trying to behave properly as a strategy for securing a shag is usually pretty obvious to a woman. Most women or men prefer to be seen as human beings before they sleep with you.

Of course we're all human beings, that's not the point. The point is that women have a significant amount of power caused by the sexual asymmetry demonstrated by the Million Dollar Sex Challenge.

Sex in our society must be consensual and in private. To a woman, that will mean making herself vulnerable to a man. She is not going to consent to being in that position with a stranger, unless she is already vulnerable, for example, by being drunk.

What is the point in stating the obvious like this? Nobody thinks sex shouldn't be consensual. I was being controversial, but I'm not a lunatic.

I hope they all bail out when you've bought them not quite enough drinks for that to be the case. And pour the last one over your heid.

Hey, I'll have you know I'm quite the charmer, when I try.

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:16:21 UTC | #590741

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 211 by TirelessRebutter

I'm not sore because I'm proved wrong, it's just that I think you're talking nonsense. It isn't even remotely realistic that we can exlcude all religious people from important political movements such as women's feminist movements.

Evangelical-bashing is popular around here. I'm just pointing out that Muslims (even "moderate" Muslims) are a much worse group, and warrant all the discrimination we apply to evangelicals, and then some.

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:14:27 UTC | #590433

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 209 by TirelessRebutter

Right, so you don't want any religious people on your side in a political movement.

This is an extreme view, to which I think only marginal individuals would pay any attention. Dismissing the political opinions of religious people means that Democracy isn't worth the 10p stamp needed to write home about it.

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:33:11 UTC | #590397

Go to: C of E updates baptisms with snappier language.

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by TirelessRebutter

Comment Removed by Author

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:28:26 UTC | #590396

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 202 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 201 by sprite :

and no, I'd rather 'evangelicals' were not on my side. I can't see how they could be otherwise, though I have had some support from Christian feminists which is a little embarassing but good to see the anger of women can be within Christianity too.

Muslims are much worse than evangelicals, and yet I sincerely doubt you would say "I don't want Muslims on my side". In fact, like most liberals you would probably dismiss such talk as extreme bigotry. Such a gross inconsistency makes nonsense of your political position, and we can safely ignore anything you have to say along these lines.

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:20:36 UTC | #590256

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 198 by TirelessRebutter

Fair enough, I'm wrong, although other things being equal, wouldn't you rather have evangelicals on your side than against you?

And let's not resort to nasty stereotypes, please. Francis Collins is an evangelical. They say "not all Muslims", but "not all evangelicals" is hugely more appropriate. Radical leftists are maybe just as bad as evangelicals, in any case.

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:26:22 UTC | #590212

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 195 by TirelessRebutter

See Sommers' "The War Against Boys" if you want evidence.

Anyway, the main point is that you are being inconsistent. The pay gap between men and women is held up as evidence of discrimination, whereas the academic gap between girls and boys is explained away. As is the vast difference in life expectancy, unemployment rate, crime rate, and heaven knows what else -- all explained away.

In short, it would appear that you consider inequality to be "unfair" only if it works against women. The fact that you and so many others would seriously entertain this view is itself very interesting, and is yet more evidence that claims of "patriarchy" are utterly detached from reality.

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:42:53 UTC | #590177

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 193 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 166 by sprite :

But the very same thing - boys' inferior academic performance, greater drop-out rates, greater tendency toward drugs and violence - exists in Iran and this is hardly connected to successful feminism or sexual equality is it? I dare say it is also similar in many other countries where no one would look towards feminists/women/misandry as being anything to do with the problem.

This has nothing to do with anything that is being said. Nobody is claiming that neo-feminism is causing boys' inferior academic performance. The point is that boys' inferior academic performance is generally ignored completely, whereas women's lower pay in the working world is automatically interpreted as proof of discrimination.

Comment 181 by Richard Dawkins :

Yes, thank you for mentioning that. It was the only part of her lecture that worried me. I cannot see myself forming any close alliance with Wendy Wright's 'Concerned Women of America.'

Richard, with respect, I don't think she proposed aligning with evangelicals. She said conservatives, which is quite different. Certainly if any movement wants to be taken seriously it shouldn't restrict itself to hysterical, reality-denying radical leftistis, who are frequently just as bad as evangelicals.

Even supposedly moderate leftists, like Cartomancer earlier on, often betray a deeply unscientific view of the world when you probe them closely enough. Despite the experiments and evolutionary arguments you mentioned, Cartomancer was actually trying to advocate that men aren't more sex-driven than women.

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:25:28 UTC | #590171

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 152 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 149 by Steve Zara :

Yes, it does.

But that is only a sign of your own dogmatism, and I have already explained why. You ignore different results in education, and focus on only different results in pay, only because the latter case is favourable to women.

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 02:12:24 UTC | #589824

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 151 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 142 by Cartomancer :

I wonder how many of these apparent "lies" are little more than inaccuracies brought about by poor attention to detail. I've a fair bit of experience with the work of poor academics, and mistakes like that crop up all over the place, even unintentionally.

That's true on some occasions, but one thing that is interesting about some of the examples raised by Sommers is the morbid readiness with which supposedly "patriarchal" society would believe, for instance, that on Superbowl Sunday the rate of violence against women increases by 40%. (This turned out to be completely baseless.) Or what about the widespread outcry that there is an emergency in little girls' self-esteem (this was the conclusion of a 1991 study commissioned by the American Association of University Women, but Sommers deconstructs it and shows how it is really rather shoddy research whose conclusion is thoroughly unwarranted).

Almost any piece of new "information" about how women are abused and exploited will become viral without anyone bothering to examine the source or speculate about hypotheses which don't involve discrimination. Sommers gives literally dozens of examples of this happening. Probably the most recent example is the "controversy" about the overrepresentation of men in engineering/mathematics/computer science (as opposed to, say, psychology/sociology/English lit, where women are overrepresented).

The fact that there's a controversy about engineering, mathematics and computer science, but not psychology, sociology and English lit, isn't evidence of a patriarchal society. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 02:07:28 UTC | #589823

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 147 by TirelessRebutter

Comment 141 by Steve Zara :

There certainly isn't near-equality in the UK right now, with women being typically paid less for equivalent work than men, and women significantly under-represented in many areas of life, such as management and academia.

But look at how dogmatic you are being. You insist on equality of results (not equality of opportunities) only when it is favourable to women. The fact that women constitute 60% of graduates and near 99% of criminals doesn't cause you to say that men are the disadvantaged sex. But difference in pay, even though there are lots of possible explanations such as greater time spent with children and lower levels of competitiveness among women, causes you to say that women are being discriminated against.

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:43:07 UTC | #589815

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 139 by TirelessRebutter

Sommers' book doesn't pretend that the battle has already been won. Sommers describes herself as an equity feminist. She contrasts that with gender feminism, which is the new, rabid strand of feminism.

She does say that there's "near-equality", and most people agree with her. Most women don't feel they're being discriminated against in any significant way. The case for significant discrimination always rests on highly questionable assumptions (such as that deviation from 50:50 ratio is evidence of discrimination).

You're simply wrong in your characterization, because Sommers presents dozens of examples of lies propagated by feminist academics (for instance, the claim that 150,000 women in the US die of anorexia each year, when in fact it is anorexia sufferers each year). She gives so many of these examples that it can't possibly be realistic that there isn't anything wrong with women's studies and related fields. The intellectual standards can be frankly appalling, and there's little doubt that Sommers is far more intelligent and concerned with the truth than a typical "scholar" in the highly suspect subject of women's studies (in which mainsteam teaching, for instance, includes the premise that sex is acquired through socialization).

All this will become apparent to individuals who read the book.

[Edited by moderator to remove implied accusations of dishonesty and bring within Terms of Use]

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:45:49 UTC | #589764

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 134 by TirelessRebutter

And you seem awfully desperate to sing its praises before anyone has had a chance to read it. I probably could dig up several egregious misrepresentations if I had a copy with me and the will to do the job, but I last read the book and several like it just over ten years ago and have little desire to revisit it now.

If the book is so bad, then surely it shouldn't be so difficult for you to give examples of why it is bad, or trust that readers will see it for what it is.

There are many books, such as "The Holocaust Industry" written by the radical leftist Norman Finkelstein, which I think are truly awful con-jobs. I might say a few critical words about this atrocious work, but such remarks would contain substance. All you were doing though was spreading a bad smell.

I encourage people to read Sommers' work, perhaps starting with this fine lecture (sorry for broken link above), and determine for themselves whether she is some right-wing agent of anti-progressive falsehood.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 23:20:08 UTC | #589744

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 130 by TirelessRebutter

Actually, Sommers doesn't have much to say about the causes of superior female academic achievement. What she does say is that there is a big advocacy gap, and few or no political organizations seem to care about the plight of boys in schools.

In stark contrast to this, any number of political organizations is kicking up a cyclopean fuss about male overrepresentation in engineering and computer science.

I would agree that her books should be judged by each reader. And in the context of all the OTHER books written on the subject too. I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person who reads it will find it a dangerously self-serving piece of controversy for the sake of controversy, ill-supported by evidence when one digs a little deeper and shot through with anti-progressive sentiment

You seem awful desperate to discredit the book before anyone has a chance to read it. If it's such a shoddy con-job fit only for the waste paper basket, then surely it shouldn't be hard for you to show me some especially egregious lie or misrepresentation, out of all her literally hundreds of independent factual claims?

I predict you won't be able to do this, because it is a serious work written by a serious scholar. It is a far too common occurrence for fundamentalist leftists to dismiss books as right-wing propaganda and slander their authors, without having the courtesy to offer a single example of a factual inaccuracy or conceptual flaw.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:59:29 UTC | #589734

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 128 by TirelessRebutter

No, I'm not insisting that Sommers' work is entirely true and accurate, I'm encouraging people to read her work and see for themselves. I'm pretty sure that any reasonable person who reads the book will see quite quickly that it is an honest scholarly piece of work. If they don't, they don't. People should read and make up their own minds.

She does indeed write about this. The question we must ask ourselves, however, is "is it true?"

Yes, it simply is true that girls greatly outperform boys in schools, not just in overall grades but in other ways such as drop-out rate. In the US and UK about 59% of graduates are women. These facts aren't controversial.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:48:43 UTC | #589724

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 125 by TirelessRebutter

I wouldn't cite anyone in the social sciences as an authority, because they are so heavily politicized, and it's so easy to distort statistics to further one's own agenda.

I cited Sommers because she provides hundreds of examples of lies spread by neo-feminist activists, and illustrations of their tremendous political clout. She also writes about how boys' inferior academic performance, greater drop-out rates, greater tendency toward drugs and violence, etc., is ignored by the neo-feminist establishment. The neo-feminist establishment insists on equality in results, but only when this works to the advantage of females. (For instance they insist that anything other than 50% of engineering graduates is sexist, but the same logic would lead them to demand that 50% of drop-outs or psychology majors should be girls.)

Or it could be because it's, y'know, flawed and wrong and little more than a fulminating polemic against an imagined problem that doesn't really exist in the service of an anti-progressive ideology that seeks to portray victimisers as victims and overturn decades of work towards equality?

Or it could be that a secular strain of dogmatism is afoot in academia, and this dogmatism is causing people to attack Sommers. I encourage people to read her work and make up their minds for themselves.

Perhaps you would care to provide one then? If I could think of any field in which women had it easier than men in our society I would throw it into the mix, but unfortunately there really aren't any that matter.

I have already provided several examples in this thread, most recently the example of education, in which girls significantly outperform boys. If you were arguing in good faith it wouldn't be necessary for me to repeat myself.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:39:50 UTC | #589713

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 122 by TirelessRebutter

Sommers and her husband are registered Democrats. So much for dodgy "right-wing political leanings".

I'll tell you what is dodgy, and it's the kind of propaganda that you just tried to pump into the meme pool by accusing her of "right-wing political leanings" when in fact she is an academic philosopher who votes Democrat. No doubt this same kind of propaganda is exactly why her work is controversial in establishments dominated by neo-feminist radical leftists.

"The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker was similarly controversial, and so was even "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. So is "The God Delusion". By any stretch, controversial isn't the same as bad, and it's hard for me to imagine why any freethinking atheist could so vacuously assume the contrary.

That's right, dismiss the evidence. Rather than, say, engage with it. Which is what a, y'know, scientist might do.

I don't need to engage with it, because it fails in even approaching the level of fair scientific argument. It is entirely bereft of any kind of comparison. For us to begin to discuss it, you would need to provide a checklist of female privilege. Conviently this checklist is omited. These neo-feminist tactics, which we see employed time and time again are no better than the stock tactics of creationists with which we are all familiar. (See Sommers for examples of feminist disregard for truth, including a hilarious fantasy that the mythical character Romulus of Rome introduced misogynistic laws.)

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:21:57 UTC | #589701

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 120 by TirelessRebutter

For support of my claim of equality or near equality, see Christina Hoff Sommers' 1995 book "Who Stole Feminism?" No doubt the situation has got even better for women since 1995. Also see her "The War Against Boys", which shows that girls have an overwhelming advantage in education, which has been completely ignored by pressure groups and politicians, so that males might be the sex at an overall disadvantage in the modern West today.

Cartomancer's facile checklist can be dismissed along with most of his other "evidence", because it would be trivial to compile a checklist for female privilege as well as male privilege.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:03:20 UTC | #589684

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 115 by TirelessRebutter

I believe it's well-known that social status can is connected with levels of testosterone. Perhaps in societies which allow women to progress more in society, female sex drive will seem to increase.

There already is equality or near-equality in many countries in the world, and we don't see anything even approaching equal sex drive in women. Nor has their sex drive seemed to increase over the last few decades of equality or near-equality.

We don't see equal sex drive in women anywhere else in the world. In all probability it wasn't any more true of classical Greece either, notwithstanding the secular dogmatism of Cartomancer.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:56:03 UTC | #589672

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by TirelessRebutter

As for this "misogynistic culture" twaddle, the studies I mentioned don't depend on written literature, as a cursory glance at the literature guide I linked to would attest.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:42:54 UTC | #589651

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 108 by TirelessRebutter

Right, so you're comparing mainstream evolutionary psychology to astrology and dowsing?

The few Greek philosophers you mention though (without actually quoting or telling us what exactly you're talking about) are worth more than any number of rigorous cross-cultural studies. I get it.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:36:39 UTC | #589643

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 102 by TirelessRebutter

No, I'm not dogmatic, Cartomancer. For instance, here is a paper by Gottschall on the literature supporting the conclusion that female attractiveness is cross-culturally much more emphasized than male attractiveness.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. See "The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology" for yet more references. There is simply a huge amount of literature on this subject, a portion of which is cited by Gottschall. Your mention of a few classical Greek philosophers is simply laughable in comparison.

Just for fun, though, would you care to actually quote for us the claims of these Greek philosophers?

He has found exactly what simplistic just-so-story science predicts. Real evolutionary psychology predicts a complexity that simply cannot be borne out by cherry-picking canonical literary selections for the sake of bolstering lazy hypothesising.

No, it's not "cherry-picking", it is a perfectly legitimate scientific study. Its conclusion could easily have gone the other way.

"Real evolutionary psychology" predicts that men cross-culturally have greater sex drive, and that is exactly what researchers find again and again. I wish Richard would step in here and say a few words.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:26:37 UTC | #589632

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by TirelessRebutter

Well then, I suggest you actually go and read some Greek thinkers on the subject. Aristotle's Historia Animalium book IX is a good start. Or there's Aristophanes' Lysistrata and Thesmophoriazusae, Or Galen's medical works. Or any of the copious secondary literature concerning sex and gender in classical Greece.

Yes, and if you read Plato you'll find that there was an advanced civilization from the island of Atlantis. If you read Aristotle you will find that back then gravity operated differently and a heavy object was pulled to earth more strongly than a lighter object.

I'm not prepared to reassess amply documented scientific findings, which represent a pillar of modern psychology, merely because some Greek said so. If you want a real cross-cultural survey of literature, see the work of the literary scholar and evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Gottschall. He has found exactly what evolutionary psychology predicts.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:15:05 UTC | #589623

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by TirelessRebutter

It isn't a minor difference. It's a big, big difference, all-important in human relations. See for instance the experiments cited by Richard. See "The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology". The difference in innate sex drive between men and women is really very considerable, and as explained above by Richard there is ample evolutionary rationale for this difference.

Good luck getting your paper published, good luck winning the Nobel Prize, and say hi for me to Kent Hovind when you see him in intellectual Hell.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:07:14 UTC | #589615

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 94 by TirelessRebutter

Which is exactly the source of our disagremeent. Not "some men compared with some women maybe". Not "some cultures". It is simply an OVERWHELMING sex difference observed UNIVERSALLY in human cultures. Don't take my word for it, because cross-culturally universality is precisely the kind of thing that evolutionary psychologists study, and the greater sex drive of women is a pillar of evolutionary pschology.

What is amusing about this is that the vast sex difference in sex-drive is PRECISELY the subject of this thread, borne out not least by the experiments cited by Richard. Yet here we see you going back to the "some men, some women" confusion, as if Richard's post doesn't exist.

I sincerely doubt you're right about classical Greek culture, and would urge you to try and get published in any journal on evolutionary psychology. If what you say is true then you have made an astonishing finding, so astonishing that a Nobel Prize mightn't be out of the question.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:57:27 UTC | #589607

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by TirelessRebutter

No, but perhaps from this preponderance of disparate data we can conclude that men are hugely more sex-driven than women.

Actually, there's no "perhaps" about it, since the conclusion is accepted by all respected scientists in the relevant fields. If you want to join the intellectual platform of the creationists, be my guest, but I don't think I'll follow.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:44:42 UTC | #589597

Go to: The Million Dollar Sex Challenge

TirelessRebutter's Avatar Jump to comment 89 by TirelessRebutter

Cartomancer and Steve Zara, type into Google "adult chat" or something along those lines, and step aboard one of the chat rooms. You're in for a big surprise, because what you will see is dozens of sex-hungry heterosexual men vying to be acknowledged by a handful of much more reserved and far choosier women. A caricature version of the stuff we see in bars. I'm afraid information like this just doesn't go away, no matter how much the politically correct establishment tries to shut it out.

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 20:38:43 UTC | #589589