Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I Have read that 1 in 10 people believe the world May end in december.

Not that all of them positively believe it, but think it Might Happen.

Ive personally asked tons of people myself and 50/50 say it may end.


Question.

When the world doesnt end, Are you going to brag in those peoples faces saying "I told you so you f*cking moron"?
Will there be more of these "End of the world dates" in the future?

2. What If It Suddenly Became Apparent That All That Stuff About 2012 Was True?

If every layman in the world believed it but not a single relevant expert did (and none do) it would still be bullshit.

To your first question: no. But then I don't really have contact with people who believe in the 2012 Doomsday.

To your second question: the only thing that would make it apparent that the 2012 Doomsday hypothesis was correct would be the sudden end of the world, in which case it wouldn't matter what anyone thinks because the world would end.

What would be your reaction though?

Also, how many familys do you think are taking precautions "just in case"?

i hope it will be the rapture. isnt that supposed to be when all the bible thumpers float up into the sky and disappear? oh please yes

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
What would be your reaction though?

Also, how many familys do you think are taking precautions "just in case"?
Exactly what precautions can you take for the supposed end of human civilization/the world?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Will there be more of these "End of the world dates" in the future?



Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
2. What If It Suddenly Became Apparent That All That Stuff About 2012 Was True?

ALL of that stuff?

So Earth is about to be hit by a star and an asteroid and the planet Nibiru while the alignment with the center of the galaxy blasts us with deadly cosmic radiation while the magnetosphere vanishes just as time collapses into a singularity that causes everything that has happened, will happen, and could happen to occur simultaneously?

I imagine I'll be too busy working with UNATCO to stop the alien invasion that to notice any of it.

"End of the World" prophecies have been there since time immemorial.Tbh, even after we pass on into the next year, I don't see this tired old eschatological schtick of the human race coming to an end.

What factors, other. than an extinct ancient people saying so, are there to indicate the world will end next month? I guess an asteroid or comet, that astronomers haven't seen could strike. Or maybe the Yellowstone volcano could go off, or aliens invade, or Corporate America could actually care about something other than executive salaries and bonuses, etc Personally, I'm planning on being here Dec 21

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C

2. What If It Suddenly Became Apparent That All That Stuff About 2012 Was True? i'd make a youtube video about it to alert the world.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
What factors, other. than an extinct ancient people saying so, are there to indicate the world will end next month? I guess an asteroid or comet, that astronomers haven't seen could strike. Or maybe the Yellowstone volcano could go off, or aliens invade, or Corporate America could actually care about something other than executive salaries and bonuses, etc Personally, I'm planning on being here Dec 21
The thing is that according to pretty much all Mayan experts the Mayans didn't claim that Dec 21, 2012 would be the end of the world--just the start of a new era.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The thing is that according to pretty much all Mayan experts the Mayans didn't claim that Dec 21, 2012 would be the end of the world--just the start of a new era. Yeah---a new era of DEATH.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I Have read that 1 in 10 people believe the world May end in december.

Not that all of them positively believe it, but think it Might Happen.

Ive personally asked tons of people myself and 50/50 say it may end.


Link to what you've read?

Approximately how many are "tons of people" that you've questioned?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
ALL of that stuff?

So Earth is about to be hit by a star and an asteroid and the planet Nibiru while the alignment with the center of the galaxy blasts us with deadly cosmic radiation while the magnetosphere vanishes just as time collapses into a singularity that causes everything that has happened, will happen, and could happen to occur simultaneously?

I imagine I'll be too busy working with UNATCO to stop the alien invasion that to notice any of it. thats alot of stuff, I didnt know that many things are supposed to happen

Originally posted by Robtard
Link to what you've read?

Approximately how many are "tons of people" that you've questioned?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/infographic-one-five-americans-believes-end-nigh

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-mayancalendar-poll-idUSBRE8400XH20120501

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138449/The-end-nigh--Americans-think-world-end-year.html


Tons as in more than 50 people, At my university, Gym, Concerts, Clubs etc

So some online poll and a daily mail article. LoL.

So 50ish people likely in your demographic.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
thats alot of stuff, I didnt know that many things are supposed to happen

Yes. No matter how the world happens to end most of these "prophets" will be wrong.

if the sun does fire a gamma burst...it will fire it in almost direction randomly...thats too many directions the odds of it hitting us is so very low...our biggest concern is if that burst hits Jupiter...scentists say it has the potiential to become another star...Asteroids on the other hand will need to deal the other planets before getting to earth...also on a side note Mathmaticly speaking...how much oxygen do trees produce?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I Have read that 1 in 10 people believe the world May end in december.

Not that all of them positively believe it, but think it Might Happen.

Ive personally asked tons of people myself and 50/50 say it may end.


Question.

When the world doesnt end, Are you going to brag in those peoples faces saying "I told you so you f*cking moron"?
Will there be more of these "End of the world dates" in the future?

2. What If It Suddenly Became Apparent That All That Stuff About 2012 Was True?

Where are these people? I seriously don't know a single person who is dumb enough to think that, nor have I heard of anyone who is irl.

Also, where did you read 1 in 10? I'd be interested in the reference, and also in how the question was posed. Of course it "might" end. It might end any day. Depending on how the question is presented, anyone with some linguistic pride about them might have had to answer "yes" to it.

Lots of "end of the world" parties and shows though. Nice excuse to drink.

As for your #2, I really don't see the point behind most of your hypotheticals. What if it's true? Then the world ends and we die. Duh.

forget his post...read mine above

The guy who made all this crap up about the Mayans, unless I'm mistaken, has almost the same background and education as the guy who wrote Chariots of the Gods?

If the world is to end, what we think does not matter. So just enjoy each day

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
1. When the world doesnt end, Are you going to brag in those peoples faces saying "I told you so you f*cking moron"?

2. Will there be more of these "End of the world dates" in the future?

3. What If It Suddenly Became Apparent That All That Stuff About 2012 Was True? 1. No

2. Yes

3. I'd find Bloomberg, kick him in the nuts, then drop acid at Ground Zero.

Just saw the links OP posted. Still...I don't know anyone that dumb. Maybe I'm giving the human race too much credit, but I can't help but be skeptical when someone makes the claim that circa 10% of the population thinks the Mayans could be right. The higher numbers are for the "in your lifetime" question, not specifically 2012, which includes various doomsday scenarios. Still, given cosmic timescales, the odds of it happening in any particular life-length stretch are very remote. Predictably, one of the studies cited education level as being inversely correlative to belief in the prophecy.

Originally posted by Digi
thinks the Mayans could be right.
As I've said before, I've not seen any credible sources that assert that the Mayans even predicted the end of the world in 2012.

Edit: The whole "world will come to an end in my lifetime" tripe is just an example of how people are so vain and arrogant that they think that their lifetime must somehow be the most important time in history.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I've said before, I've not seen any credible sources that assert that the Mayans even predicted the end of the world in 2012.

Sure, but we're not talking about credible sources, we're talking about public opinion. Whether or not it was actually predicted is moot.

Agreed on your second point, though I think your point is just a byproduct of the bit on education I mentioned.

Originally posted by Digi
Sure, but we're not talking about credible sources, we're talking about public opinion. Whether or not it was actually predicted is moot.

Agreed on your second point, though I think your point is just a byproduct of the bit on education I mentioned.
I don't know if I'd agree that it's a matter of education alone. There are well educated people who for other reasons (cultural hubris, a kind of millenarian romanticism, or maybe just good old fashioned egoism) might see things this way. Education might help to the extent that it might reveal to people their own biases, but I don't know if it's anything close to a guarantee, just as it's never been an guarantee against racism, Anti-Semitism, or chauvinism.

No one can doubt that Voltaire was a well educated man, yet he was all three (actually, I can't remember if he was chauvinistic or progressive in that regard) and from what I've read of him his Anti-Semitism went well beyond the normal standards of his time.

Whos that guy in omega vision sig?

You mean my avatar?

Jean Toomer.

repeat of previous question...how much oxygen do trees produce on a mathmaticle stand-point?

Originally posted by Villelater
repeat of previous question...how much oxygen do trees produce on a mathmaticle stand-point?

Its more of a biology question.

Mature trees can apparently produce hundreds of pounds of oxygen over a year, though not evenly distributed over time. The amount varies significantly from species to species and tree to tree.

Lets say an "average" hectare of tree makes enough oxygen to sustain 16 people (Nowak, Hoehnm & Crane, 2007). There are currently 4 billion hectares of trees in the world (page 15 here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf). That suggests the produce enough oxygen for 84 billion people but the real number is reduced since the FAO is counting areas of less than 100% tree cover.

A person takes in .84kg of oxygen per day according to Nowak and friends. That means trees produce on the order of 25.7 tillion kilograms of oxygen per year.

FINALLY!...whoo... next question...the sun is round and how many angles of direction could a gamma burst fire?

Originally posted by Villelater
the sun is round...how many angles of direction could a gamma burst fire? Hints (courtesy of Google Image):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/049B18CD-B8AD-441D-C78BE62030D90D34_1.jpg

http://img.tgdaily.net/sites/default/files/stock/article_images/space/gammaray.jpg

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/gamma-ray_bursts.jpg

I was going to say 129600 directions.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know if I'd agree that it's a matter of education alone. There are well educated people who for other reasons (cultural hubris, a kind of millenarian romanticism, or maybe just good old fashioned egoism) might see things this way. Education might help to the extent that it might reveal to people their own biases, but I don't know if it's anything close to a guarantee, just as it's never been an guarantee against racism, Anti-Semitism, or chauvinism.

No one can doubt that Voltaire was a well educated man, yet he was all three (actually, I can't remember if he was chauvinistic or progressive in that regard) and from what I've read of him his Anti-Semitism went well beyond the normal standards of his time.

We're talking likelihood, probabilities. No one said anything about a guarantee. You're less likely to believe the it, the more educated you are. It's cited in the one link, and makes intuitive sense as well. While things like racism can be taught from youth and ingrained that way, no one has been talking to their kids about Dec. 2012 for decades. There are fewer cultural influences outside of one's education, because it has not been a ubiquitous topic of discussion until now.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was going to say 129600 directions. My response was a compromise between feeble wiseassery (eg, "One: outward"; smug intolerance ("Google it, noob"; and eager informative (long-winded explanation + sample GRB link).

Originally posted by Mindship
My response was a compromise between feeble wiseassery (eg, "One: outward"; smug intolerance ("Google it, noob"; and eager informative (long-winded explanation + sample GRB link).

lol,

Originally posted by Digi
We're talking likelihood, probabilities. No one said anything about a guarantee. You're less likely to believe the it, the more educated you are. It's cited in the one link, and makes intuitive sense as well. While things like racism can be taught from youth and ingrained that way, no one has been talking to their kids about Dec. 2012 for decades. There are fewer cultural influences outside of one's education, because it has not been a ubiquitous topic of discussion until now.
Dec. 2012 is just another hat that the Millenarian Ghost has put on. Doomsday theories and predictions have been popular since at least Biblical times.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dec. 2012 is just another hat that the Millenarian Ghost has put on. Doomsday theories and predictions have been popular since at least Biblical times.

Agreed, but I'm not sure sure this refutes my point. /srug

Originally posted by Digi
Agreed, but I'm not sure sure this refutes my point. /srug
It seems like we disagree on an issue of degree, not content. I do think that education (in proper fields) should cut down on belief in prophecies. It's just that I've known too many smart people who still have strong religious faith despite their level of education (DDD for instance. What's up with that? sneer) to think that education will inoculate someone against irrational beliefs.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You mean my avatar?

Jean Toomer. Put Machine Gun Kelly In Your Signature, I dont know who that guy is in yours

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Put Machine Gun Kelly In Your Signature, I dont know who that guy is in yours
First off, it's an avatar.

Second off, I'm not going to change my avatar because you don't know who Jean Toomer is (though I don't imagine you're alone in that regard *lit hipster*)

He's the guy who wrote Cane, duh, totes love that book.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It seems like we disagree on an issue of degree, not content. I do think that education (in proper fields) should cut down on belief in prophecies. It's just that I've known too many smart people who still have strong religious faith despite their level of education (DDD for instance. What's up with that? sneer) to think that education will inoculate someone against irrational beliefs.

This is a good point, but I think you're misunderstanding the difference between a majority and a statistically significant difference. I actually think you do know this, and I don't want to insult your intelligence, but just to make my point...

Let's say 80% of the general population is religious (not an unreasonable estimate). And to make it simpler, high school graduate, college BA, college masters, and doctorate are, respectively, 85% religious, 80%, 75%, and 70%. At 70%, you're still talking about a healthy majority, but you're also dealing with a large statistical swing from the 85% high school grad demographic.

So I think that's what you're seeing. We're in a religion-saturated world. An intuitive glance at any range of education would tend to inform us that anyone can be anything. And that's true. But there's still a much higher chance you won't be religious (or believe the Mayans, or {insert numerous beliefs}).

As it is, I don't know what the exact percentages are, but there is a demonstrable link between level of education and lack of religion, and iirc it's considerably bigger than my example above. The margin gets even bigger when you only look at scientists. Theist scientists can still be found in droves, but the percentages are far lower than the general population. It's almost impossible to bring this up without injuring the sensibilities of theists in the audience, because it's often stated with a sense of superiority (which I try to avoid). But the fact of it remains.

Interestingly, the correlation between education and lack of paranormal beliefs (not gods, per se, but other phenomenon) is much less strong, almost to the point of nonexistence. So there my case loses some ground, and yours gains a bit. But the data is still there for organized religion and belief in God.

One-man cheeseburger apocalypse

Originally posted by Digi
This is a good point, but I think you're misunderstanding the difference between a majority and a statistically significant difference. I actually think you do know this, and I don't want to insult your intelligence, but just to make my point...

Let's say 80% of the general population is religious (not an unreasonable estimate). And to make it simpler, high school graduate, college BA, college masters, and doctorate are, respectively, 85% religious, 80%, 75%, and 70%. At 70%, you're still talking about a healthy majority, but you're also dealing with a large statistical swing from the 85% high school grad demographic.

just because we are being pedantic:

you actually confused statistical significance with effect size.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's the guy who wrote Cane, duh, totes love that book.
It's a wild ride. It's especially interesting when you consider that years after writing it, Toomer looked back with shame and regret because of people considering it a monument of black culture while he was just about yelling "I'M NOT BLACK!!!" from a mountain top. (Mr. Garrison style, naturally)
Originally posted by Digi
This is a good point, but I think you're misunderstanding the difference between a majority and a statistically significant difference. I actually think you do know this, and I don't want to insult your intelligence, but just to make my point...

Let's say 80% of the general population is religious (not an unreasonable estimate). And to make it simpler, high school graduate, college BA, college masters, and doctorate are, respectively, 85% religious, 80%, 75%, and 70%. At 70%, you're still talking about a healthy majority, but you're also dealing with a large statistical swing from the 85% high school grad demographic.

So I think that's what you're seeing. We're in a religion-saturated world. An intuitive glance at any range of education would tend to inform us that anyone can be anything. And that's true. But there's still a much higher chance you won't be religious (or believe the Mayans, or {insert numerous beliefs}).

As it is, I don't know what the exact percentages are, but there is a demonstrable link between level of education and lack of religion, and iirc it's considerably bigger than my example above. The margin gets even bigger when you only look at scientists. Theist scientists can still be found in droves, but the percentages are far lower than the general population. It's almost impossible to bring this up without injuring the sensibilities of theists in the audience, because it's often stated with a sense of superiority (which I try to avoid). But the fact of it remains.

Interestingly, the correlation between education and lack of paranormal beliefs (not gods, per se, but other phenomenon) is much less strong, almost to the point of nonexistence. So there my case loses some ground, and yours gains a bit. But the data is still there for organized religion and belief in God.
Seeing as I've admitted that there is a negative correlation between education and irrational beliefs and you've admitted that high education doesn't preclude irrational beliefs, this seems like quibbling, you quibbler. uhuh

Originally posted by Oliver North
just because we are being pedantic:

you actually confused statistical significance with effect size.

No, it's cool. I'll avoid this mistake with some pedantic academic in the future now.



Originally posted by Omega Vision
Seeing as I've admitted that there is a negative correlation between education and irrational beliefs and you've admitted that high education doesn't preclude irrational beliefs, this seems like quibbling, you quibbler. uhuh

Not quibbling. It's the difference between education being a contributing factor in lack of these beliefs, and it not being a factor. I think, especially in this particular instance where we have one of the Mayan polls directly stating it, we can conclude that education is a big factor.

I'll have to dig up the "paranormal belief to education" studies I read, because I may actually be underselling my point by misremembering that data as showing little-to-no correlation. I pronounced it was less pronounced than religion and belief in God, but I don't remember the details of it.

Originally posted by Digi
No, it's cool. I'll avoid this mistake with some pedantic academic in the future now.



to be fair, at the number of people you are talking about (your "N", I'm not sure how much stats you know) your power (the likelihood of a significant result) would be so high, a 15% difference almost couldn't be significant. Just saying is all

lol, I'm doing a lab for intro stats at the moment, its a really common mistake . Its weird to think that huge effects might not be significant or vice versa.

Hey ON, are you preparing for your patients to be repeatedly disappointed when they realize you can't write prescriptions?

(You're planning to go into counseling, right?)

1) I wont have patients, I have subjects.

2) omg do you know how dangerous that would be? I'd have so many faulty scripts for tranquilizers I'd probably never get out of bed... not to be melodramatic...

lol, as a real answer to a joke question, I'm never going to have a medical degree. I don't care if my research helps people, I just want to know how we work. I wouldn't stop it if someone uses what I do to help people, but I'm way more interested in understanding the "normal" population rather than helping the "clinical" one

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(You're planning to go into counseling, right?)

omfg no

EDIT: just to throw it out there, I use the term "counselor" to refer to someone who got a psychology degree but doesn't care at all about the science and just wants a crappy job after university. I use "human resources dept." in the same, literally exact, way

Originally posted by Oliver North
1) I wont have patients, I have subjects.

2) omg do you know how dangerous that would be? I'd have so many faulty scripts for tranquilizers I'd probably never get out of bed... not to be melodramatic...

lol, as a real answer to a joke question, I'm never going to have a medical degree. I don't care if my research helps people, I just want to know how we work. I wouldn't stop it if someone uses what I do to help people, but I'm way more interested in understanding the "normal" population rather than helping the "clinical" one



omfg no
Well, as I understand it, the cool thing about research psychology today is that due to the massive complexity of modern studies in almost any science, psychologists are brought into things like particle physics labs so as to test the testers, so to speak.

My Epistemology professor actually knew a handful of psych and philosophy majors who got their names in one of Fermilab's latest papers as consultants.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, as I understand it, the cool thing about research psychology today is that due to the massive complexity of modern studies of almost any science, psychologists are brought into things like particle physics labs so as to test the testers, so to speak.

to some degree, yes. I would say, as a science, we are far more aware of things like experimenter bias and self-selective results (however, social psych seems to have a continuing problem, largely in Europe, of falsified data).

Ultimately, I'd wish stuff like that just became part of science, but ya, I'm with you. I'm not sure how much you know about James Randi or the "Alpha Project", but even he says that, if the experimenters had been psychologists rather than physicists, they would have been much more prepared for trickery or lying on the part of the subjects, something which people who focus on the "fundamental forces" , my biases against physicists are well documented at this point] of the universe aren't too familiar with.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My Epistemology professor actually knew a handful of psych and philosophy majors who got their names in one of Fermilab's latest papers as consultants.

damn, I've never heard of anything like that, actually... that would be really cool, but again, personally, I'd way rather be figuring out human behaviour than checking the results of another person's research

Originally posted by Oliver North


damn, I've never heard of anything like that, actually... that would be really cool, but again, personally, I'd way rather be figuring out human behaviour than checking the results of another person's research
I'm sure it's cutthroat competition to get that kind of job.

You can think of it this way: you'd be figuring out the behavior of the scientist subgroup of humans.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm sure it's cutthroat competition to get that kind of job.

Seems like the kind of thing that requires a variety of skill sets. Just trying to imagine it I see a need for psychology, philosophy of science, really really deep stats knowledge, and good interpersonal skills.

Psychology.

Originally posted by Mindship
Psychology.

and still, most people think about Freud and Dr. Phil when you bring up the term...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You can think of it this way: you'd be figuring out the behavior of the scientist subgroup of humans.

sure, but I'm still not into looking at clinical populations

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Seems like the kind of thing that requires a variety of skill sets. Just trying to imagine it I see a need for psychology, philosophy of science, really really deep stats knowledge, and good interpersonal skills.

oh for sure...

to double check that a quantum physcist wasn't falling victim to some type of bias, you would nearly have to be able to run their experiments yourself.

It would be a very rarified set of skills

Originally posted by Oliver North
to be fair, at the number of people you are talking about (your "N", I'm not sure how much stats you know) your power (the likelihood of a significant result) would be so high, a 15% difference almost couldn't be significant. Just saying is all

oh god....

insignificant, at the number of people you are talking about the difference almost couldn't be insignificant...

dammit...

Originally posted by Oliver North
and still, most people think about Freud and Dr. Phil when you bring up the term...Unfortunately (*sigh* / *facepalm*, respectively), though occasionally one hears a Skinner comment --which often includes a confusion of negative reinforcement with punishment; hell, even Big Bang Theory failed on that one...but then again, physicists.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Seeing as I've admitted that there is a negative correlation between education and irrational beliefs

to be fair, if you control for education, belief in ghosts goes up

only a crazy small minority of degrees given each year are in STEM or related fields. There are more people getting drama or art history degrees.

cZv3E0fMKN0

That oppressive Chinese government, they have some balls.

Though I'm curious why a Christian sect believes in ancient Mayan myths?

the cynic in me thinks the Christians actually are using it as a way to gain supporters.

is not the world suppose to end tomorrow?

I wonder? hmmmm?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the cynic in me thinks the Christians actually are using it as a way to gain supporters.

You're making baby Jesus cry again.

Originally posted by rudester
is not the world suppose to end tomorrow?

I wonder? hmmmm?
It already ended over here, three hours ago in fact. It was really cool, we had fire raining from the sky and demons emerging out of the cracks from the craters. But it's over now.

Originally posted by Astner
It already ended over here, three hours ago in fact. It was really cool, we had fire raining from the sky and demons emerging out of the cracks from the craters. But it's over now. That happened to me after I tried Lark Burger for the first time.

Well it officially past and we are still alive. Good on us.

No it hasn't.

I wonder how many people will be disappointed when the world's still here at 11:59 PM...

What would be your (post-mortem) thoughts if everything went fine until 11:59:59, and then our sun just hypernovaed?

Being dead kinda sucks now that Nibiru destroyed everything. Bummer.

There are bound to be people who take the smallest signs of destruction/change as proof that the "Prophecy" was correct, even if those signs are nothing new (e.g. the global recession continuing, the Syrian Civil War getting worse, more school shootings in the near future)

Originally posted by Lestov16
What would be your (post-mortem) thoughts if everything went fine until 11:59:59, and then our sun just hypernovaed? So much for seeing 'Man of Steel' this summer... OR:

I'm still aware! Conscousness survives matter! Eat my dust, empiricists!... OR:

Who phucked with the sun's mass??

OR, simply...

...whoa...

Sucks for History Channel. 2012 Doomsday was the basis for like half of their shows

Originally posted by Mindset
No it hasn't.

Yes it has.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Yes it has.

No, they've been very clear about this the world will end at midnight on 12/21/2012 at midnight GMT (Nostrodamus says in quatrain IV.47 that "Other timezones can suck it."

Originally posted by Lestov16
Sucks for History Channel. 2012 Doomsday was the basis for like half of their shows
Well, they did start doing those other survival spin-offs based on other potential disasters just for that reason.

Glad to see so the Apocalypse missed so many countries, even though I was hoping Japan would get a little of it at least.

Still have about 8.5hrs to go here until the US is in the clear.

The world didn't end? Oh, right...that's because that theory was stupid as ****.

I hope I don't wake up to news about suicides over this.

Y6ljFaKRTrI

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I hope I don't wake up to news about suicides over this. Oh Tom Cruise willing...