This ^^^

@Sacha What is the up v's? I don't even know how to duplicate them.

@Leutrelle If you are on a computer, should be the symbol above the number 6 ^^^

Super cool, @Nebroxah!

seems to me the joke like always with science got it wrong... shouldn't be the werewolf instead? Just saying... when you are wrong you are wrong.

@GipsyOfNewSpain Various vampire movies and traditions say that sunlight kills vampires, but during the day, werewolves were simply normal looking humans.

@birdingnut Sure, when science is wrong it's wrong, unlike Gipsy who only seems to be wrong when he's talking.

@birdingnut the tradition is... first ray of sunlight at dawn. Just that first ray, you leave it to hollywood and to believe hollywood as dogma will make you believe that thumbs up is good and thumbs down is bad... In ancient Rome was thumbs down meant put your weapon down and do not kill the gladiator... thumbs up meant raise your weapon and strike but hollywood got it wrong and here we go... now you believing vampires are killed by sunlight even the one reflected in the moon. And science claiming the credit... he, he, ha, he. science stealing honor. he, he, ha, he, he, ha.

@GipsyOfNewSpain (sigh) It's just a joke. Not to be taken seriously.

@birdingnut I know it was just a joke but...

@GipsyOfNewSpain
Actually there are a few legends in that department. The main theme is direct sunlight, period. The one thing Holy-weird used to get right was that no one would see vampires at all during the day because they'd all gone to ground to avoid the sunlight. The assumption was because the direct light would likely kill them. Bouncing off a moon isn't direct so it's fine. There is a whole science behind why they believed in vampires having to do with post mortem bodily bloating and fluids but it's pretty gross and I really don't want to get into it.

AS to the thumbs up/down thing... I think that was more a social understanding thing than an honest history thing. For several generations, certainly since movies started rolling, thumbs up has been a sign meaning "Ok" or "Go For It" or "Carry On" in most societies today while the thumbs down means "No" or "It stinks/sucks" or whatever other negatives you can throw in there. Translating that into the big screen so people understood, especially back in the days of black and white, was more important to the producers than conveying actual history. They were entertainers, not historians.

Chocolate chip made from fair trade ingredients.

@Unfoldingchaos - when you get to the peanut butter cookies, drop me a message and I'll be right over!

I give you 850 thumbs up for the "don't litter." One of my biggest pet peeves. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the mentality that says "I'll throw this here -- right here in this beautiful forest -- or right here on this crowded sidewalk even though there is a garbage can six feet away."

The existence of humans is necessarily bad for the Earth; it is nearly impossible to leave this place better than you found it. I think maybe the aim should be to not destroy it as much?

@JeffMurray I agree it seems near impossible, I came from the corporate world of international trade and finance, seeing what was going on, illegal imports of rare timber and so many other things. 12th of May this year marks 30 years since I left that, and have only worked on minimal wages in the not for profit sector ever since. My first work was setting up new financial institutions and writing their loan and investment policies ensuring the money was not available for socially or environmentally negative purposes, they have been applied to all sorts of institutions and in my region alone as of the end of last year there is 666 million managed under my policies. Nation wide is it many times that. Hmmm, didn't notice the number previously -ominous. I have had nothing to do with it for well over 25 years but raised the first 2 million. After that I hit the disability support industry and turned it inside out making the largest company in its field 9 times for efficient. More recently I worked in environmental restoration, endangered habitat and get paid for less than 10% of what I do. My own home is carbon negative exporting 40kwh of solar to the grid daily and we are self contained for water and waste, grow 80% of our own food and give away more than 1/2 of that we grow to a local food bank. I do drive a car and fill it 5 or 6 times a year, last set of tyres lasted 10 years and am waiting to move to an electric vehicle. I know all of these things consume far too many resources, and I have to justify the use in my head. I consider whether I should stop doing what I do and not have the vehicle. I am currently the sustainability coach in my region, it is an unpaid position and each week advise people how to reduce their impact on the environment. I realised that on my own I made negligible impact, so try and be a catalyst or lever. The only reason I have included some of my activities is to show that we can all do things to make a difference. I can't give up no matter how hopeless it seems, this is the purpose I see for myself. I agree totally with your comment "The existence of humans is necessarily bad for the Earth;" industrial society exist on environmental destruction, pre-industrial civilisations could be sustained, I just want to see a shift that puts us back to being at least neutral environmentally.

@Rugglesby That is all super awesome, and yes, everyone should follow your example. You may be in the tiny, tiny percentage of people that could leave it better than you found it, but only because you may impact others to be less harmful to the planet than they otherwise would have, thus mitigating whatever negative impact you have. But, considering the best thing that could happen to the planet is the immediate death of all humans, your reduction of their bad behavior pales in comparison. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen anytime soon, so you are an excellent example of how to human. I am not. I saw the writing on the wall long ago. Humans are insanely stupid. They have not provided the proper motivation to do the right thing across the country (and world) and with how selfish they all are, without that motivation (like having to pay a per pound or per bag fee for trash, having to pay additional taxes on energy sources that are used to subsidize sustainable energy, etc.) people will just be increasingly terrible for profit and/or convenience. They actually ended the recycling program in my area, both pick up and drop off- there is no where to recycle. I would have to drive my recyclables to another city, which kind of defeats the purpose. Because of all of this, I don't feel bad about driving a 500hp Cobra that gets 8mpg or using tons of electricity to keep my house nice and cool in the summer while I watch my giant TV.

@JeffMurray I am jealous re the Cobra, that is style. I always wanted a Stingray.
Sadly I agree re the people, I would love to see a plan that reduces the human population down to 300-400 million globally over the next few generations. For me it is a personal thing, I can only do for me, so if I don't make it worse, then I justify my existence to myself.

@Rugglesby Yeah, I don't expect we should ask or comply with mass suicide, but restrictions on the number of kids we can have makes a lot of sense to me. I also think we need to come together as a global society and come to the hard realization that we shouldn't be spending 5x the resources and produce 5x the waste to keep people alive in beds than we do on people who can actually contribute to society. It sounds harsh, until the question changes from 'should we keep this person alive' to 'should we keep this person or those people alive'.

exactly as we have no mad beliefs to leave behind, only logic.

Sooooo very true.

Mother Teresa is worse.

@JeffMurray Mother Teresa shouldn’t even be compared with Stalin and Mao who were extremely ruthless and killed millions of people.

@Trajan61 She killed millions of people, too.

@Donotbelieve You are a very nice looking lady, I wish I was 20 years younger.

I agree with "acting ethically...." but you can rest assure the believers would say "you are a good christian." their ability to reason is non-existent... So, don't expect them to see such behavior as nothing but "christian".

@OnaM That would be their problem, not mine.

@DUCHESSA The believers can think and say as they wish, it doesn't make any difference to me. I do what I do because it pleases me. Believers are allowed to be wrong, it's not the first time that they have been mistaken.