The great global warming swindle

[ThunderIdeal]

With all that being said, the push toward renewable energy as a result of all this is a good thing. Pity it's taken threat of apocalypse.

honestly man, what else did you think was going to do it? we are never going to change our habits until we are forced to by circumstance. so far we, the human race, have not shown that kind of foresight. this new millenium is our proving grounds and let's face the facts: it's going to get much much worse before it gets any better, and more drastic response is needed. this doesn't just pertain to greenhouse gases either, we have made so many mistakes it isn't worth trying to list them, and they are all going to compound each other creating unpredictable results.

i say, embrace environmentalism to make up for the sheer ignorance of the past, AND, make personal preparations for a challenging future. i think it's getting to the point where we can't rely on a paypacket to obtain healthy food, and eventually change will be so severe we won't be able to rely on a paypacket at all. i'm in a hurry to somehow get some land and get started, because i'm convinced this whole unpredictable mess is going to come down on us faster than any of the predictions.

hasn't that been the case so far???????

[chilli]

Edited May 26, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[ThunderIdeal]

whether or not i believe it, i never once implied that the end is near.

anyway, all of those people could still be right, it depends on how you define 'near'.

[chilli]

I know Thunder I'm just messing around... it wasn't directed specifically at you.

*edit* I suppose that might leave you wondering exactly what the fuck I put it there for... it was just my way of showing how funny alarmist extremists look in the light of history.

Unless it really is the end this time.

Edited May 26, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

brain:

(again) you're saying i have accused you of various things. i did nothing of the sort, you're taking general statements i've made and making them personal. i did say one thing to you directly, after testing the waters, which is i think you're sitting on the fence. i got this idea because you didn't show any favour to either of the films in question, that clearly sit in the camps of environmental action now versus no need for alarm. seems to me you arent weighing in to the debate for either side yet (ie. sitting on the fence). if this isn't true, and especially if it's offensive to you, you could just calmly and succinctly explain your position better, so i understand.

you've accused me specifically of dissembling

do i need to treat you with kid gloves? read the phrasing of my post again. although you say it twice, i did NOT accuse you of dissembling, i said to dissemble on this urgent issue is no longer acceptable, given a certain value set (this was added to indicate others such as yourself might not share this conclusion). in future if you think i'm insulting you obliquely, how about asking what i meant before you chuck a hissy fit and start on about how i'm a bad person who never listens, a poser, etc. etc...

...the personal blah you aim at me is aggressive and empty. although i admit i'm interested in your explosions enough to phrase a careful reply, i was certainly not baiting you and am prepared to have reasonable debate. i'm not sure if you're soliciting it or not (all those '?' make me think you want something from me) but my advice on how you could find it easier to deal with me is to reduce the ego loading in our conversations - ie. stop associating things i write (usually mimetic) with you as a person unless i specifically phrase them that way, eg. i did not just say youre egotistical. telling me i have personality flaws that i need to fix in order to not offend you seems backwards to me; i'm not responsible for your feelings.

--

don't know about the end, but i'm reasonably sure food production, potable water, biodiversity, etc. are under threat and civilisation as we know it will change. it may be possible for this to happen in a managed way, but i think partial collapse, especially in big cities, is more likely, given our failure to act on the warnings to date and how late in the day it is now. it bugs me that the baby boomers, largely responsible for this situation, have stuck their heads in the sand, refusing to compromise their oil-driven excesses, and thus dumped their hangover on their childrens generation.

Edited May 26, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

Hi komodo,

Well I am somewhat relieved by your last post. I may have misread the intention in your statement "to continue to dissemble on this issue and not take action is unacceptable" as it was sandwiched between two statements that were directed at me. On its own it is obviously not a personal statement, but it came across quite different in context. This is one of those rare times when I am glad if I am wrong. I hope you can see how I misunderstood your phrasing, and don't just think I am completely mental, although that may still be true for other reasons.

You are correct that I was not weighing in on either side with regards to these films, because as I said I hadn't seen them. This seems like the most reasonable approach to me. You are wrong when you extend this to suggest that I am complacent towards environmental issues, as you seemed to be doing in your original response to my post:

"i value life, evolution and complex living systems... if you don't value these things, fence-sitting (which results in business as usual) is a consistent position"

I did try to calmly explain myself even after you made this insinuation, but you seemed to disregard it in favor of your original idea that I either didn't value life and the environment and that if I did I would make a judgment about these films regardless of whether or not I had seen them, all of which I considered to be quite disrespectful. It seems that with or without seeing it you would like me to come out guns blazing in favor of Gore's film, or at least not say anything bad about it, but this seems reactionary and censorial to me.

In my mind, veracity is supplemented by credibility. As a possibly bizarre but pertinent analogy, there are many people who think you shouldn't openly discuss problems in Scripture because it gives 'ammunition' to the 'bad guys,' but I think anything that is true is capable of withstanding criticism, and so I question everything. The damn movie has just finished downloading, so I'm going to watch it, but even if I think I find it is a great and largely true documentary, it would not be inconsistent if I also find certain aspects questionable; for example I'm skeptical about Gore's advocacy of the idea of carbon offsets. My point is I think it does the cause of environmentalism a disservice to minimize something like this, so you see I can value life and retain my skepticism all at once without vacillating or being inconsistent.

Thank you for explaining your mode of communication, it goes a long way towards helping me understand some of your sentences, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say you write mimetically, could you please elucidate? I think your attitude towards ego comes across as a little bit naive, as the most carefully worded sentences can be aggressive or be designed to aggravate, and the most placid personality can also be the most competitive and egocentric. Still, I definitely have a way of taking things too personally. I accept your criticism and will try to stay calmer for at least one or two more responses in future .

Believe it or not, by nature I can be quite conciliatory, but there have been many times in my life when I've been taken advantage of because I didn't stand up for myself, and I have recognized that I tend to overcompensate for that a lot these days if I feel someone is showing disrespect.

I find your predictions for developed nations quite probable by the way, as a student of history I feel as though we have difficult times ahead.

My friends say that I'm egotistical

but I don't even know what that means

I guess it's got something to do

with the way that I fill out

my skin-tight blue jeans

Oh Lord, its hard to be humble

when you're perfect in every way

Edited May 28, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

not sure exactly what you mean when you say you write mimetically [for the record, i said "mostly"]

talking about ideas as ownerless objects, viruses even, but not personal private possessions.

It seems that with or without seeing it you would like me to come out guns blazing in favor of Gore's film, or at least not say anything bad about it, but this seems reactionary and censorial to me.

i didn't respond to your failure to applaud 'truth' so much as your willingness to put 'swindle' on equal terms in a public post. it seemed like you were coming on with a "climate realist" argument that 'swindle' should be given a fair go. this is like saying creationism should be taught in schools, so kiddies have a balance of views to decide from.

people with high consumption lifestyles who are not actively seeking and promoting solutions to our environmental crisis are a big part of the problem. 'truth' is an argument for more of this action, urgently. my position is neither reactionary nor censorial; i am politically extreme left and i never suggested the swindle doco should be censored. to argue that we should keep retrogressive deception like 'swindle' off primetime isn't a promotion of censorship; it's the reponsibility of media and government not to publicise fraud presented as truth, especially on a global issue like carbon pollution.

more precisely, weighing up truth against bullshit does not mean scraping up enough shit to even the scales.

Edited May 28, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

Komodo, you are simply attributing arguments to me that I haven't made. You make a fuss when you feel I am attributing a value laden word to you and you are quite precious about me leaving out the word 'mostly' in my paraphrase even when it need not affect the sense of the sentence (ie. I didn't replace it with 'always')... and yet you are so carefree with distorting the concepts that I've gone to great lengths to try and make plain.

Again, you've just ignored or brushed over the places I've expanded on my intentions in what I said and chosen to focus on the parts that make you feel as though your initial assessment was correct. I'm not sure how you intend to reasonably discuss something when you so flagrantly continue to misconstrue what I've written.

You said:

i didn't respond to your failure to applaud 'truth' so much as your willingness to put 'swindle' on equal terms in a public post. it seemed like you were coming on with a "climate realist" argument that 'swindle' should be given a fair go. this is like saying creationism should be taught in schools, so kiddies have a balance of views to decide from.

But I'd already said:

"...from what I've heard Gore's film is the much more respectable and scientifically sound of the two, doesn't mean that bullshit is not involved to a certain degree, and I won't make up my mind until I've seen them..."

I am clearly not arguing for this show to be seen on prime time television or taught in schools or any of the other fantasies you care to construct. At the moment I can't see this as anything but blatant obfuscation, and I find it ironic that you so liberally splash around judgments about my ego, but are unable or unwilling to see how your own little ego may be impelling you to keep this up instead of just saying "oh, I must have misunderstood, thanks for explaining"... IMO it is an arrogant and immature way of carrying on a discussion (I'm getting more PC, I didn't say you are arrogant and immature).

*edit* BTW, you talk about your ideas on the environment in a very personal way, certainly not in the cool, detached way you mentioned earlier. I'm at once impressed and confused by this, because aren't the greedy capitalist swine just people with different values to yours? This is similar to the raping Mars question, but its on my mind... to me, it seems that your passion and insistence on one right ethic with respect to the environment betrays a reliance on some sort of firmish ethical ground. What I guess I'm asking is how relativist morals (ie personal values) apply to rights and responsibilities. Sadly, I feel I need to explain that this is a genuine question and is not meant to be smarmy or anything.

Also, thanks for your input in my Toxiphobia thread, it was helpful.

Plus, I'm still getting around to replying in the Synchronicity thread re: faith, I've just been letting it swish around in my head a bit first.

Probably, i should have done that here as well, oh well.

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[chilli]

oops

Edited May 28, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

*chuckles* brain, you're still talking about me instead of my ideas a bit there.

you are quite precious about me leaving out the word 'mostly'

not precious at all, just making sure that the record was straight in case someone in future reads that and thinks i claimed that i always speak of ideas and never about people.

I am clearly not arguing for this show to be seen on prime time television or taught in schools or any of the other fantasies you care to construct.

good. i wasnt constructing fantasies, i was heading them off at the pass. the two films are not to be confused as two sides of a debate, one is a proactive environmental tool containing useful information and constructive suggestions, the other is a obfuscating fraud supporting dirty business. i didn't say you were advocating putting it on tv, but you did seem to be for giving it a fair go.

to me, it seems that your passion and insistence on one right ethic with respect to the environment betrays a reliance on some sort of firmish ethical ground.

when you talk about my insistence on an ethic, youre misrepresenting a unilateral moral judgement i make from the basis of my own unique and free assessment of value as referencing some universal or higher ethical system which applies to everyone.

[chilli]

Okay, I'm glad you didn't keep flogging that poor horse of yours in your last post, but my flagging ego is still longing for you to acknowledge how misunderstood it has been.

I was scratching my head over that mimetic thing, but rereading your post its obvious you must mean memetic. I was thinking "what the hell does he mean? Is he saying he uses the same words I use?" ... besides, I'm not sure if going by your record talking about people instead of just their ideas should be outlawed just yet, or even if its entirely possible.

If by give it a fair go you mean watch it, then you were right, because I fully intend on watching it... I just don't think this constitutes support for the ideas it contains. I also just want to reiterate for all the future generations that may read this thread when you and I are enshrined as tragically warring gods that my only point has been that from what I have heard both films have varying problems, and that I don't like watching or reading things with my mind made up about them beforehand... if its bullshit it will soon become apparent, especially when its compared to truth, or whatever it is relativists call the opposite of bullshit... "truth" probably.

I guess the trouble is a lot of people like bullshit that makes them comfortable with their lifestyle and confirms what they already believe, let me assure you I don't and I even seek out things that will make me uncomfortable and unhinge my most entrenched ideas... like I said, I believe if something is true it won't be hurt by scrutiny.

As long as advice is being handed out let me say that one way you might find it easier to deal with me is if instead of saying I am 'misrepresenting' your ideas, you could say I am 'misunderstanding' them... the first instance strongly implies deceit, which has been a common complaint of mine, while the second suggests ignorance, which I happily admit to.

I'm not sure what to make of your explanation, the ideas are still fairly unclear in my mind, but it does seem like you dodged my question.

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

ah thanks, the spelling memetic is the correct one, i thought as a plural the word 'meme' became mimetic, but actually thats some kind of numerical term or deriving from mimic.

if i dont acknowledge the personal issues you bring to the table it's because i don't want to get into it with you, the internet is not a suitable forum, the bandwidth is too narrow to explain ones whole psychology and people misunderstand each other easily. you end up with big nasty posts going nowhere.

wasn't being aggressive with the misrepresentation term, just a word that fitted and came to mind easily.

what was the question?

[komodo]

brain said:

I tend to agree that most of the people who are skeptical of the generally held opinion that carbon emissions are contributing to global warming seem to mostly have a vested interest in being skeptical, whether it is ideological, political or practical. Often, when I discuss global warming or indeed any environmental issues with people they get very defensive, and when you get to the root of it, it usually boils down to something like "I'll have as many bloody kids as I want and I'm not going to be made to feel guilty everytime I eat a steak" or "those fucking green whackos aren't the boss of me".

Having said this, I also agree that the green movement can often be ugly and fanatical. The dirty, dreadlocked hippy on a bike made entirely of hemp can be driven by the same basic power and greed issues as the corporate bigwig wearing Versace and a rolling around in the latest V12 Lexus. I think so far that both of the films sounds somewhat like crocks of shit to varying degrees, but I'm going to watch both because I agree with Botanika (see, someone does read your stuff Botan) that opposing information and dissenting voices are always valuable, no matter what they are saying and I don't want to exchange one subtle totalitarian system for another.

seems to me you are quite prepared to beat up on environmentalism. that's what i object to and argue against. if you're actually now telling us you're in favour of environmental action i don't see why you posted this.

[chilli]

I understand and respect your reticence to discuss personal issues, but I'm at a loss to know exactly what you're referring to here... if it's the 'flagging ego' comment, I hope you'll realize it was firstly intended to be lighthearted and secondly not in reference to any personal matters. All I meant was it is nice if every now and again the relentless criticism, suspicion and nitpicking is counterbalanced by acknowledgment of mistakes and misunderstandings... I don't expect this from you exactly, as you are naturally free to behave in whatever way you see fit, but I do think it is a reasonable and polite way to carry out a discussion on any topic, and certainly the easiest way to ensure a productive one.

I don't think you were purposefully being aggressive in your choice of the word 'misrepresentation,' I was just pointing out that sometimes the word that first comes to mind isn't the most appropriate one, and may say more about our prejudice and misconceptions than anything our opponent actually believes... You've certainly been quick to jump on it when I've made the same mistake.

Your second post was confusing and relieving... confusing because I'm not sure exactly how you arrived at the conclusion I was 'beating up on environmentalism,' and relieving because I had been wondering all along if it was something in this initial post that was bugging you.

Now for one of my world-famous explanations:

Firstly, the caricatures were just that; caricatures... they were not supposed to relate to real people but rather denote the stereotypical ideas we have in our minds when we think "consumer" and "green", which was apparently fairly accurate as you seem to simplistically associate environmentalism with dreadlocked hippies, a ridiculous and backwards notion I think (although it comes far closer to describing my own personal appearance than the corporate guy). The "fucking green whackos" comment was put in the mouth of someone opposed to environmentalism, and was not a description of how I think of greens, but of how many middle class suburbanite nine to fivers do.

Both paragraphs were clearly using hyperbole and self-deprecatory humor to convey a message, which was that our appearance and our political alignment do not always accurately represent our values and motives... this was in response to the comment earlier in the thread that there were ulterior motives on 'both sides,' something I agree with up to a point... I do not believe all those in the environmental movement are driven by altruism and honesty as you seem to, but instead I think there are often political issues, power issues, social class issues and basic human pride issues involved. This is not 'beating up on environmentalism,' it is being realistic about human nature and in my mind its crucial these kinds of issues are analyzed and discussed if we are to have a successful 'green revolution' and not simply a power shift where the underdogs become the new overclass.

If I were to take your tack, I might speculate that the reason this seems to irk you so much is that its a little close to the bone.

[komodo]

I also agree that the green movement can often be ugly and fanatical.

This is not 'beating up on environmentalism,'

the inconsistency between these two statements is apparant to me, so i'm not convinced, but you don't need to convince me.

Edited May 30, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

But that was exactly my point... the green movement can be ugly and fanatical... this is not beating up on 'environmentalism,' it is singling out ugly fanaticism within the green movement... its like if I said Christianity can often be ugly and fanatical, something else which I believe to be correct, I am in no way beating up on Christianity. I did not say the green movement is ugly and fanatical per se... this is not sophistry or quibbling but an obvious and important distinction in the way the language is used.

I think you're intelligent enough to understand this difference, and the only reason I can think of for your apparent inability to grasp this simple distinction is nothing but foolish obstinacy... this is compounded by the fact that I already went out of my way to explain this in my previous post. You seem to purposefully read the worst motives into nearly everything I write, I'm not sure why but I suspect it has something to do with your ego, and possibly a stunted sense of humor. If you enjoy muddying the waters like this, then best of luck to you because I don't feel like wasting my time.

Or are you just jealous because my avatar is so cool?

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

the green movement can be ugly and fanatical

you have now omitted the word 'often'.

this is not sophistry or quibbling but an obvious and important distinction in the way the language is used.

Edited May 30, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

But that was exactly my point... the green movement can often [NB: this word did not occur in original, but makes little or no difference to argument, it has been added for clarity] be ugly and fanatical... this is not beating up on 'environmentalism,' it is singling out ugly fanaticism within the green movement... its like if I said Christianity can often [NB: this word occurred in original, thus largely negating its use in the first sentence, retained as evidence for pedantic quibblers] be ugly and fanatical, something else which I believe to be correct, I am in no way beating up on Christianity. I did not say the green movement is ugly and fanatical per se... this is not sophistry or quibbling but an obvious and important distinction in the way the language is used.

I think you're intelligent enough to understand this difference, and the only reason I can think of for your apparent inability to grasp this simple distinction is nothing but foolish obstinacy... this is compounded by the fact that I already went out of my way to explain this in my previous post. You seem to purposefully read the worst motives into nearly everything I write, I'm not sure why but I suspect it has something to do with your ego, and possibly a stunted sense of humor. If you enjoy muddying the waters like this, then best of luck to you because I don't feel like wasting my time.

Or are you just jealous because my avatar is so cool?

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[chilli]

of·ten

–adverb

1. many times; frequently: He visits his parents as often as he can.

2. in many cases.

most·ly

–adverb

1. for the most part; in the main: The work is mostly done.

2. chiefly; principally.

3. generally; customarily.

quib·ble

–noun

1. an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.

2. the general use of such arguments.

3. petty or carping criticism; a minor objection.

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

part of your original post in this thread was negative toward environmentalism, this is my issue, its on topic and has nothing to do with the personal crap you like to throw around. since you'll be so pedantic as to repeat your posts, and pat yourself on the back via pointless junk in the thread, perhaps you can tell us what you were on about:

what is 'the green movement' and in what ways is it often ugly and fanatical?

Edited May 30, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

"part of your original post in this thread was negative toward environmentalism"

This is incorrect please reread my previous four posts.

"this is my issue, its on topic and has nothing to do with the personal crap you like to throw around."

It seems to be a very personal issue to you, apparently one of many.

"since you'll be so pedantic as to repeat your posts, and pat yourself on the back via pointless junk in the thread"

This is incorrect, I refined my post, I didn't repeat it... the meaning remains identical despite your quibbling.

"perhaps you can tell us what you were on about"

I'm not sure who you mean by "us," is there someone else there with you, or is that an ego-bolstering technique?

Apparently I can't tell you what I was on about, but I think that may due to your inability to comprehend not my failure to explain.

[komodo]

you quibble over every sentence but refuse to answer the open, reasonable and topical question i asked you. why not just answer the question? your ideas are more interesting than your psychodrama.

Edited May 30, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

I'm not avoiding your question, I just think this is quickly becoming futile.

Nevertheless, I'll keep going although to quote you I don't really like the tone.

I used the green movement not in the political sense (note no caps) but in the wider sense to refer to environmentalism generally, I thought this was obvious.

For examples of the ugly side of the green movement, please refer to these searches on Google:

"eco terrorists"

"eco terrorism"

I don't necessarily think eco-terrorism is necessarily the most appropriate word, but these links (over 300,000 in total) I think support the usage of the word "often"...

Also, I don't restrict my "ugly and fanatical" comment only to so called eco-terrorism, but I think it applies more widely to people in the green movement who I think come across as self-righteous, hypocritical, or embittered.

This is fun... what game shall we play next?

*edit* I just noticed you changed your comment three times, and thought I'd take issue with the latest incarnation:

I believe I have been entirely reasonable and more than generous with my explanations thus far, to which you have generally replied with quite rude and obtuse remarks. I hope you will forgive me if I choose not to answer any more of your questions, it is just beginning to seem like a futile argument.

*edit* make that four times... in response to an earlier version, yes this is a public forum, but you don't speak on behalf of the other members I'm afraid, I don't hear anyone else but you trying to pick my sentences apart. Enlisting the imaginary support of everybody else who reads the thread is a rather common and transparent technique of those who are unsure of their argument, hence the ego-bolstering comment.

Also, almost all of my recent comments if you bothered to read them are not psychodrama but simply rebuttals to the many allegations and insinuations you have made.

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

you don't speak on behalf of the other members

i didn't. my use of the word 'us', and saying this is a public forum, indicates my assumption there are other people reading, who might be curious as to what the fuck we're arguing about. maybe not, given the amount of lather you've splashed around on this page, but hopefully.

as far as i'm concerned, the argument has come down to whether environmentalism is often ugly and fanatical, as you have maintained thus far.

wiki:

"As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legal forms of nonviolent protest enacted by environmentalists. This is generally seen as an attempt to associate any environmentalist activism with illegal acts of eco-terrorism."

are you, in making your pejorative remarks about environmentalists and linking the thread to google searches on ecoterrorism, claiming environmentalism is often eco-terrorism?

Edited May 30, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

from one of your suggested links:

"As a pejorative term, "eco-terrorism" has also been used to describe legal forms of nonviolent protest enacted by environmentalists. This is generally seen as an attempt to associate any environmentalist activism with illegal acts of eco-terrorism."

so you're saying environmentalism is often eco-terrorism?

You're putting spin on things I've said and then putting them in my mouth, I thought that was a big no-no.

As you know, I said "the green movement can often be ugly and fanatical," you asked for examples of this and I gave you two: eco terrorism, which occurs frequently enough and with enough publicity to be considered often, and self-righteous, elitist mentality greens who also give the movement a bad image.

I fully understand the way eco-terrorism is used as an epithet to smear the green movement generally, something I object to. I explained all this in my last post so you either need to read it more carefully or you're just being silly again.

*edit* sorry, you edited your post again.

"until you set out clearly exactly what you mean, i'll make assumptions. once you actually explain concisely what you're on about, i'll understand where you're coming from. i'll respect it if it is consistent and well-intentioned, and won't if it isn't."

I couldn't care less whether I have your respect or not, and you seem to make assumptions no matter how many clearly I set out what I mean. You also seem to be a terrible judge of whether someone's intentions are good or not, its basically a case of guilty until proven innocent, except evidence by the defense is inadmissable in the court of your brain.

"i never did [speak on behalf of the other members]. this is pure bullshit, brain. by saying this is a public forum, i was assuming there are other people reading, who might be curious as to what the fuck we're arguing about."

You asked me to explain something to "us," and explained that you were referring to yourself and the other forum members... if other people are curious they can read for themselves and ask me themselves. Like I said, its a blatant attempt at an ad populum argument, and is used to try and divide the discussion into "you" and "us."

"as far as i'm concerned, we're arguing about whether environmentalism is often ugly and fanatical, as you have maintained, not over who's right and who's wrong, or who offended who blah blah. get over it."

Again, I generally haven't been arguing about who offended who, but merely responding to your many allegations. Going by your comments to me in this discussion so far, I suspect that being right is precisely what you care about the most.

*edit* sorry, I can't seem to keep up with all your edits, its getting a bit frenetic. Frenetic edit... get it?

Edited May 30, 2007 by IllegalBrain