Haiti's been pretty much destroyed. Who will be the first to help?

[Fury]

Q. How much do Americans give? Is the amount we give going up?
A. In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century. Correcting for inflation and population changes, GDP per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent, while charitable giving per person has risen by about 190 percent. That is, the average American family has gotten much richer in real terms over the past half century, and charitable giving has more than kept pace with this trend.

Q. So where do the donations go?
A. A large majority of U.S. citizens donate money each year to houses of worship and charitable organizations. Most estimates place the percentage of American households that make monetary contributions each year at 70 to 80 percent, and the average American household contributes more than $1,000 annually. But it is not the case that American giving goes entirely—or even mostly—to religious institutions. About a third of individual gifts go toward sacramental activities, primarily supporting houses of worship. The rest goes to secular activities, such as education, health, and social welfare.

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

Damn, Americans really are assholes. 

Europeans get MUCH more vacation time to boot. Guess they can't be bothered to help out their fellow man.

[Soul Crusher]

Q. How much do Americans give? Is the amount we give going up?
A. In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century. Correcting for inflation and population changes, GDP per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent, while charitable giving per person has risen by about 190 percent. That is, the average American family has gotten much richer in real terms over the past half century, and charitable giving has more than kept pace with this trend.

Q. So where do the donations go?
A. A large majority of U.S. citizens donate money each year to houses of worship and charitable organizations. Most estimates place the percentage of American households that make monetary contributions each year at 70 to 80 percent, and the average American household contributes more than $1,000 annually. But it is not the case that American giving goes entirely—or even mostly—to religious institutions. About a third of individual gifts go toward sacramental activities, primarily supporting houses of worship. The rest goes to secular activities, such as education, health, and social welfare.

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

Damn, Americans really are assholes. 

Europeans get MUCH more vacation time to boot. Guess they can't be bothered to help out their fellow man.

I thank God my ancestors left Europe for America.  I cant stand Europeeons. 

[Fury]

I thank God my ancestors left Europe for America.  I cant stand Europeeons. 

But Americans are the assholes. L-O-L. 

[Soul Crusher]

But Americans are the assholes. L-O-L. 

No we are not.  Its opposite of that.  Most Europeeons I have met a miserable pricks looking for a handout. 

[Fury]

No we are not.  Its opposite of that.  Most Europeeons I have met a miserable pricks looking for a handout. 

Indeed.

[Ganuvanx]

I find it suspicious events like this occur in the shitholes of the world nobody really cares about. HAARP is capable pulling off earthquakes and tsunamis among other things. I wouldn't be surprised if they have experimented with it in just this fashion.

[Fury]

I find it suspicious events like this occur in the shitholes of the world nobody really cares about. HAARP is capable pulling off earthquakes and tsunamis among other things. I wouldn't be surprised if they have experimented with it in just this fashion.

[OzmO]

Wow!  A new one!

http://www.letxa.com/issue_haarp.php



HAARP refers to the High-Frequency Active Auroal Research Program and consists of a phased array transmitted which is pictured to the right. It is located at approximately 62.39N, 145.15W near the town of Gakona, Alaska.

The purpose of HAARP is to analyze the behavior of the ionosphere which is the part of the atmosphere that extends from approximately 70km up to as much as 1500km. In this area of the atmosphere approximately 0.1% is made up of ionized plasma created by the sun's natural ultraviolet radiation. The ionosphere itself is made up of three layers known, in increasing altitudes, as the D (70-110km), E (110km-250km), and F (250+ km) layers and whose position may be determined by how they interact with radio waves. The exact altitude of the layers changes naturally and constantly. While the "E" layer and part of the "F" layer reflect radio waves, the lowest level--the "D" layer--actually tends to absorb them. Since different parts of the ionosphere absorb or reflect radio waves it can and does have a direct effect on radio waves that passes through it, be it earth-to-earth radio or signals being transmitted to or from satellites.

The purpose of HAARP is to research, both passively as well as actively, the behavior of the ionosphere. This is done by transmitting a focused beam of radio frequency energy, at between 2.8 and 10MHz, directly at a point in the ionosphere between 100 and 350 km in altitude, basically within the "E" layer. The energy focused in this area of the ionosphere lets the HAARP facility monitor the behavior of that area of the ionosphere during the test.

It should be stated that although the facility's total transmitting power is 3.6 megawatts, only about 80% (2.8 megawatts) actually reaches the ionosphere due to antenna inefficiencies (Source).

THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES

The conspiracy theories related to HAARP pretty much run the entire spectrum of the imagination of conspiracy theorists. Many of the theories are summarized on sites such as this one.

    * Earthquakes: Sites such as this one suggest that HAARP has the capability to cause earthquakes at practically any point on earth. As best I can tell, they suggest that HAARP modifies the ionosphere and, consequently, modifies the magnetosphere. The site above says "The magnetosphere is vital to the stability of the tectonic plates that float on the surface of the earth". However, I haven't found any site, other than similar conspiracy sites, that substantiates any connection between the magnetosphere and stability of tectonic plates. Fluctuations in the magnetosphere are associated with auroral activity, commonly known as the "Northern Lights." Given that the sun causes fluctuations in the magnetosphere constantly and causes significant fluctuations during solar storms, the lack of a link between solar activity and earthquakes further calls into question a link beteen the magnetosphere and plate tectonics. Lacking documentation of a connection between the magnetosphere and tectonic stability, a connection between HAARP and earthquakes is speculation not based on science.

    * Missile Tracking: It seems that Jerry E. Smith has created a niche market writing conspiracy books about HAARP and suggesting that, while it was once a research facility, it is now a full-fledged missile tracking system. He believes that HAARP can aim its radio frequency beam at will (actually it can only aim straight up) and that it is in violation of several treaties. As far as I can tell--and I admit I haven't bought his book--there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support his claims and some of them seem to be in direct contradiction to reality. HAARP cannot be aimed anywhere but straight up. He also subscribes to the theory that HAARP effects the magnetosphere which effects plate tectonics. In fact, the site above (PropagandaMatrix) actually seems to have quoted Smith regarding the connection between the stability of plate tectonics and the magnetosphere. Where Smith got it, however, I haven't been able to determine. This man believes that patriots are fools and his main interest in HAARP seems to be in generating interest and paranoia to stoke sales of his book. His history includes writing poems, science fiction and fantasy, and in the 90's he started writing about AIDS, UFOs, and then HAARP. In fact, his first non-fiction work was "HAARP: Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy" and it would seem that the "non-fictional" status blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction.

    * Missile Defense: The RadarMatrix site goes one step further than the missile tracking proposed by Jerry E. Smith. The webmaster of RadarMatrix suggests that HAARP is actually the Strategic Defense Initiative and is capable of destroying incoming missiles. There is simply nothing to support this claim and the suggestion that civilian scientists would be present and operating the HAARP facility were that it's real use seems rather improbable.

    * Weather Control: Also promoted by RadarMatrix and other sites is the belief that HAARP can control the weather. This theory is also endorsed by Mr. Smith. In the case of RadarMatrix, this is tied into the radar anomalies observed at NEXRAD weather radar sites. Again, there is no evidence to support this. HAARP does its work in the 100km-350km altitude range within the E and F levels of the ionosphere while all weather occurs in the troposphere which only extends up to about 14-18km. I've seen no explanation by those that subscribe to the HAARP/Weather Control theory how it is that HAARP can control the weather when it is operating at an altitude at least 7 times higher than where weather occurs. Again, it seems there is no scientific or logical reason to believe a HAARP/Weather Control conspiracy.

    * Mind Control: You probably knew it was coming, but there are those that believe that HAARP can actually offer some kind of mind control or "mood" control. Again, Jerry E. Smith is no stranger to this theory and his HAARP book discusses this, too. According to this site (and I have not verified the information), certain extremely low frequency (6-11 Hertz) waves can cause a person to feel good or depressed. Apparently those that believe in HAARP mind control have somehow come to believe that HAARP not only operates at these frequencies (rather than the 2,700,000 - 10,000,000 Hertz it is known to operate at), but that it can somehow do it remotely--i.e., somehow target the "mind control" to other areas of the earth from Alaska. Once again, it's not so much the evidence against this theory as it is the complete lack of any evidence to support it.

As you can see, you can pretty much pick whatever you want to believe HAARP is capable of and you'll probably find some conspiracy theory promotes that belief. People like Jerry Smith have pretty much decided to pick all of them. But what all these theories have in common is a lack of scientific basis or supporting evidence. They are all based on speculation and usually cite each other as sources for the information providing a very convenient "circular logic" that allows them to build the theories higher and higher while never providing any real evidence for any of it.

DETECTING HAARP ACTIVITY

Sites such as this one suggest that they can detect when HAARP is active by listening to 3.39MHz. In this case, the site indicates that HAARP came on in a "standby mode at the highest daytime transmitter power." Ignoring for a moment the fact that "standby" and "highest transmitter power" seem to be direct contradictions, HAARP doesn't have a "standby" mode nor does it nor has it transmitted at 3.39MHz except for a HAARP-to-HAM radio test years ago. (Source). Sites that suggest that they can detect when HAARP is operating based on monitoring the 3.39MHz frequency seem to be barking up the wrong tree.

THE PATENTS

Something else that conspiracy theorists will point to are registered patents that have something to do with HAARP.

   1. Patent 4,686,605
      "Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere"

      This patent is referred to as the key document.

      However, this patent covers a technology whereby "excitation of electron cyclotron resonance is about 1 watt per cubic centimeter" while HAARP only achieves 3 microwatts per cm2--thus the patent specifies an energy 333,333 times greater than what HAARP is capable of. Further, the patent requires "excitation of electron cyclotron resonance is initially carried out within the ionosphere and is continued for a time sufficient to allow said region to rise above said ionosphere". In other words, it is the intent of this patent to actually move plasma from the ionosphere above the ionosphere. HAARP does not do this.

      In short, the "evils" attributed to this patent (interference with satellites, aircraft, missiles, etc.) depends to a great extent in applying over 300,000 times as much power as HAARP is capable of applying. Considering that 3.6 Megawatts is needed by HAARP to achieve 3 microwatts per cm2, it would appear that the device described in the patent would require 300,000 times that: 1,080,000 megawatts which is 1.08 terawatts.

      Let's put that in perspective.

      If we compare that to the fact that the world currently consumes about 12 trillion watts (12 terawatts) we can conclude that the energy consumed by HAARP to achieve the power indicated by the patent would require approximately 8% of all the energy currently produced in the world. That's basically the same amount of power consumed by the countries of the United Kingdom, Mexico, Italy, Spain and Pakistan put together. (Source).

      Alternatively, it's over 1/4th of all the power production capability of the United States.

      Another way of looking at it is that the most powerful nuclear reactors in the U.S. are capable of producing about 1.1 megawatts of electricity each. So HAARP would need about 1000 nuclear plants to generate all the power it would need.

      And they get all this power out of six 3600-HP diesel generators? (Source). Or where, in the picture to the right, do we see sufficient energy production capability?

   2. Patent 5,068,669
      "Power Beaming System"

      Another patent that conspiracists point to is this one that is owned by the same company (APTI) that owns the previous patent. The suggestion, I guess, is that if they own a patent similar to HAARP and they also own this patent that relates to beaming energy from one place to another, that HAARP must be beaming energy.

      However, the technology described in this patent is very different from that at HAARP.

         1. This patent speaks of electromagnetic radiation produced at frequencies of 18-35 GHz while HAARP is only capable of operating between 2.8 and 10.0 MHz. The frequencies required by this patent are about 6000 times higher than that produced by HAARP.
         2. This patent requires transmitting antennas on a "movable pedestal." HAARP simply does not have such a movable pedestal.
         3. This patent speaks of a single antenna whereas HAARP has 180 individual antennas.
         4. This patent speaks of transmitting relatively low amounts of power to an airborne object, such as a plane or satellite. Much of the patent talks about the fact that the device receiving the energy must transmit a "tracking signal" so that the system may beam the energy to the right place. HAARP does not have such a capability. Even if it did, this patent covers energy transmission to an airborne object, not ground-to-ground energy transmission nor does it provide a way for HAARP to "target" its energy to some specific point on earth.

      There seems to be no relation between HAARP and this patent whatsoever.

   3. Patent 5,041,834
      "Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted"

      This patent is very similar to the first one mentioned above in that it discussed an atmospheric ionospheric mirror (AIM). The only real difference is this one talks about how to create such an AIM that has an angle to it. That is, the first patent talks about an AIM created at a specific altitude while this one talks about how to create it with an angle. This would allow a radio wave to be bounced off it with more accuracy.

      This patent does, in fact, talk about aiming a radio wave, but it should be noted that the work of the antennas themselves are always right above the installation. It can't create such an AIM somewhere else--only right above it. It is assumed that another antenna near the installation would then transmit a communication signal and bounce it off the ionospheric mirror and, thus, achieve communication over the curvature of the earth. But, still, the radio signal bounced off the AIM could only be bounced to points that are visible from wherever the ionospheric mirror is created. Even at 100-350km you couldn't reach the other side of the world to target earthquakes in Iran like some sites suggest.

      In summary, they point to interesting patents but the patents themselves don't accurately describe HAARP. About the only thing they have in common is that they both modify, in some way, the ionosphere.

THE HYPE

Many websites talk about HAARP and state erroneous information and, based on that, take them to their illogical conclusion. Some common inaccurate information is:

   1. Power of HAARP in Billions of Watts. Sites such as this claim that HAARP is capable of transmitting a billion watts and eventually will be able to transmit 4.7 billion wants. In fact, the transmission power of HAARP is limited to 3.6 million watts, of which only 80% (2.8 million watts) is actually transmitted into the ionosphere due to antenna inefficiencies. Sites like the one just cited misstate the power of HAARP by over 3 orders of magnitude--that is, they're off by more than a factor of 1000. So far I haven't seen any of these sites provide any factual basis for their claims.

   2. HAARP has Ground-Penetrating Capabilities. This site claims that in 1994 the Congress froze "funding on HAARP until planners increased emphasis on earth-penetrating uses for nuclear proliferation efforts." The only thing I've found that comes close to this claim is this document which reads (on page 728):

            "Of the funds authorized in fiscal year of 1996, the conferees recommend that $1.5 million be available for the exploration of the "deep digger" concept for hard target characterization, and that $5.0 million be available for the high frequency active auroral research program (HAARP)."

      While HAARP is mentioned in the same sentence as something that would appear to be "ground-penetrating" (i.e. the deep digger), reading the above excerpt causes me to think that the deep digger concept and HAARP are two separate issues. Certainly the only thing that remotely links them is that they're mentioned so close together, but the sentence structure doesn't appear to me to necessarily link the two.

CONCLUSION

HAARP almost definitely exists for its stated purpose. While it is not impossible that research conducted there may eventually yield information that is of military value, this is true of virtually any research in any field.

There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence, however, that HAARP can cause earthquakes, control the weather, detect missiles, destroy missiles, or engage in mind control. These theories appear to be vague speculation from conspiracy theorists that cite each other as sources and, thus, build theories that have no factual basis.

Of course, it is always possible that information in the future could show that something clandestine is occurring at HAARP. But until such information or evidence is made available there is simply no basis in fact to believe any of the wild conspiracy theories as they relate to HAARP. It would seem much more probable that the theories are simply the result of active imaginations on the part of conspiracy theorists and/or the efforts of certain quacks to sell their books and DVDs on the topic.

[Fury]

Let me rephrase it for you, Hugo. Sending $50,000 or a dozen volunteers does not qualify as help.

And it's about time Venezuela FINALLY did some good. Funny they've got money to throw around while their citizens live in poverty. Socialism works! 

[240 is Back]

Tsunami Relief Donations...

Pledged amounts as percentages of GDP: USA was 18th
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Pledged_amounts_as_percentages_of_GDP

Pledged amounts on a per capita basis: We don't even rank.

We gave a lot and did a lot for Tsunami relief, but many of these countries did a lot too.

I don't know where anyone gets the belief we bail everyone out.  We don't. 

[Fury]

Q. How much do Americans give? Is the amount we give going up?
A. In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century. Correcting for inflation and population changes, GDP per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent, while charitable giving per person has risen by about 190 percent. That is, the average American family has gotten much richer in real terms over the past half century, and charitable giving has more than kept pace with this trend.

Q. So where do the donations go?
A. A large majority of U.S. citizens donate money each year to houses of worship and charitable organizations. Most estimates place the percentage of American households that make monetary contributions each year at 70 to 80 percent, and the average American household contributes more than $1,000 annually. But it is not the case that American giving goes entirely—or even mostly—to religious institutions. About a third of individual gifts go toward sacramental activities, primarily supporting houses of worship. The rest goes to secular activities, such as education, health, and social welfare.

Q. Are Americans more or less charitable than citizens of other countries?
A. No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 (the most recent year for which data are available), Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.

Damn, Americans really are assholes.  

Europeans get MUCH more vacation time to boot. Guess they can't be bothered to help out their fellow man.

Feel free to read this, 240.

And, as it seems to be so nicely ignored, I was specifically speaking about the other major world powers. Most of these world powers are conveniently MISSING from any of these lists. I don't care about countries like Qatar. Although I do find it embarrassing that small countries (without much to gain from donating abroad) are pulling more weight than "glorious" countries like China or Russia.

For example, the Chinese donated $63 million as opposed to the American's $2.875 billion.

Nor do these lists account for how many Americans will travel abroad to help. There are already thousands of Americans making their way down to Haiti to assist in any way they can. How many other countries are moving more than a few dozen people?

[240 is Back]

americans - as a people - are very charitable.

Our govt does give... but 17 other nations gave more to the Tsunami areas.


This isn't a "us vs. them" deal.... but any statement that "we do more than anyone else!!!" is off. 

It's charity... there's no dick-measuring contest going on here...

[Fury]

Measuring donations as a part of GDP (as you're so apt to do) is a pretty error prone method.

For example, as wikipedia links:

Pledged amounts as percentages of GDP

The table below examines the amounts pledged for humanitarian efforts in light of rough national economic power, which is arguably a more useful measures. There are a number of caveats that should be kept in mind while reading the table:

   1. The figures do not include the cost of operating military resources deployed to provide aid, and it is unclear how this should be quantified. While some would argue that military resources are already paid for and that the relief effort can be regarded as a logistics training exercise, the increased operational costs are an unbudgeted expenditure. Others would argue that the military resources provide the only infrastructure that will deliver aid in a timely manner to save lives to the hardest hit and neediest areas, and without this quickly deployable infrastructure the other contributions, no matter how large would be useless or arrive too late.
   2. The figures do not tell anything about the rate in which the money will be spent. How much of the money is going to be spent this year and how much is reserved for long-term reconstructions efforts is not reflected by this table.
   3. Use of Gross Domestic Product (or Gross National Product) should be treated with caution as this does not accurately measure a country's ability to provide aid. Similarly, whether to use 'nominal' or 'real' GNP/GDPs can be argued. Some GDP/GNP figures are also out of date e.g. for the year 2002, or even 2001, so comparisons between countries may not be for the same time period. A better comparison might be used by examining Purchasing Power Parity-adjusted GDP/GNP figures (as used in the CIA factbook).
   4. It can be argued, the quality of aid differs as "aid" is an ambiguous term that may cover a wide variety of methods, including 'soft' loans (where the money has to be repaid with interest albeit at below market rates), and 'tied aid' (where the money has to be spent buying goods and services from the donating country). The terms by which the aid is accepted play a large role in determining how useful it is and also affect the relative cost to the donating country.
   5. This is aid for one particular disaster. Without knowing how much aid the various countries and their people donate to other disasters, one cannot draw conclusions on their overall level of generosity.
   6. The numbers below are the pledged contributions. Arguably, only funds that are actually transferred should be counted.
   7. The amounts pledged by individual sovereign nations within the European Union should be increased by amounts pledged by the European Union itself.

The first point is a good point to look at it. The US military, for example, was very, very, VERY active after the tsunami.

So, any statement that "we do more" is most likely spot on. There are thousands of websites that refute this. You don't, though. And your entire argument is centered on the very faulty use of donations per GDP.

Edit: The more I read over this, the more idiotic measuring aid by percentage of GDP looks. It accounts for nothing beyond "pledged amounts" of money. This, along with the fact you ignored some other glaring statistics to prove your point makes your argument look pretty dumb.

[240 is Back]

then i concede % of GDP due to incomplete info.

What about the fact we're 18th in total donations?

[Tito24]

I just read that they fear up to 500,000 dead.  OMFG. 

good lord...

[Kazan]

WTF? arguing over who is giving the most? America has the ability to send our navy to any region in the world and provide relief, no other country can do that. Every country sends or donates what it is able, good on them for it.

[regmac]

That's right, the people of the USA and that mean old government. Chances of China or the other world powers lending a hand? Close to 0.

France is on the way.    NOT

[Fury]

then i concede % of GDP due to incomplete info.

What about the fact we're 18th in total donations?

No. We're 18th by money pledged as percentage of GDP, which as wikipedia even points out, is to be taken with a grain of salt. We're #1 on total donations, having pleged over $2.875 billion. Australia is the next closest at $1.33 billion pledged. And going by that countries listed there, no one else even came close to having pledged $1 billion or more.

best post of the thread.

I have no idea what the purpose of calling out other countries not being able to do what we do.  They give what they can and as 240 has shown, it's not peanuts.  Of course they're not going to be able to do what we've done or still can do.  BF made it sound like they don't even give a rats ass.  Even Cuba will be sending a shit load of medical aid.

You seem mad. The Venezuelans/Cubans toil away living in poverty and yet the Venezuelan and Cuban governments miraculously come up with $1 billion dollars to pledge. Socialism works! 

[Ganuvanx]

The doctor in this vid explains how he used ELF waves to cause an earthquake.

Also interesting is Norway has one of these devices. The strange spiral seen in the sky in Oslo Norway occurred the day Obama accepted his peace prize in Oslo.

Haiti would be an ideal testing ground for the unbelievable sick individuals running the show

[Fury]

me mad at you   Like I've admitted all along, you're annoying like a mosquito. 

Is that why you follow me around Getbig like a lost dog?

[Fury]

dream that up? you certainly can't back it up....  You're the one that starts all kinds of threads about me.  I don't think I've ever started a thread about you.

You've followed me into the Y and other boards you don't post on.  

It's alright. I've had a fan club on here for years now.